Home/CVE/A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant
CVE
CVE-2024-56170
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise.
Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest.
As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.
MEDIUM · CVSS 5.3
EPSS 0.00195
Schedule remediation
- SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
Sigma rules0
YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
▸
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2024-56170, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked.
EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal.
CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score.
Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits.
PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).
◆
ATT&CK techniques
7Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.
T1134 · Access Token Manipulation T1134.001 · Token Impersonation/Theft T1528 · Steal Application Access Token T1539 · Steal Web Session Cookie T1550.004 · Web Session Cookie T1557.002 · ARP Cache Poisoning T1584.002 · DNS Server
▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques
▤
CAPEC attack patterns
12Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.
CAPEC-CAPEC-111 · JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) CAPEC-CAPEC-141 · Cache Poisoning CAPEC-CAPEC-142 · DNS Cache Poisoning CAPEC-CAPEC-160 · Exploit Script-Based APIs CAPEC-CAPEC-21 · Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers CAPEC-CAPEC-384 · Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle CAPEC-CAPEC-385 · Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation CAPEC-CAPEC-386 · Application API Navigation Remapping CAPEC-CAPEC-387 · Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content CAPEC-CAPEC-388 · Application API Button Hijacking CAPEC-CAPEC-510 · SaaS User Request Forgery CAPEC-CAPEC-59 · Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
⬡
Weakness Classification
CWE-346Origin Validation Error
▤
Affected Products & Versions
1nicmx fort-validator<= 1.6.6
▣
Scoring & Timeline
5.3
MEDIUM · CVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
Attack Vector
Network
Adjacent
Local
Physical
Attack Complexity
Low
High
Privileges Required
None
Low
High
User Interaction
None
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Low
High
Integrity
None
Low
High
Availability
None
Low
High
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
none
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
partial
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.
🔗
References & Sources
1Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.
https://nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.htmlVendor Advisory