pluto in Libreswan before 4.11 allows a denial of service (responder SPI mishandling and daemon crash) via unauthenticated IKEv1 Aggressive Mode packets. The earliest affected version is 3.28.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libreswan | Libreswan | 3.28 (including) | 4.10 (including) |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.5-1.el8_7.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | libreswan-0:3.29-7.el8_1.2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support | RedHat | libreswan-0:3.29-7.el8_2.2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Telecommunications Update Service | RedHat | libreswan-0:3.29-7.el8_2.2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | libreswan-0:3.29-7.el8_2.2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Extended Update Support | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.3-6.el8_4.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.5-1.el8_6.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.6-3.el9_1.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.6-3.el9_0.1 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15 | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.6-3.el9_0.3 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.6-3.el9_0.3 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.17 | RedHat | libreswan-0:4.6-3.el9_0.3 | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | focal | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | kinetic | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | oracular | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Libreswan | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.