CVE-2016-10142

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.

公开: 2017-01-14 最后更新: 2026-06-16 分配方: [email protected] 来源: [email protected]

结论预警: CVE-2016-10142 综合评估为中等风险(64/100):CVSS 技术影响为高级,利用概率(EPSS 2.75%) 强制指令: 梳理受影响资产并纳入修补计划。

风险随态势动态变化;本站持续评估并同步更新本页展示内容。

CVE-2016-10142 的 EPSS(利用预测评分)

EPSS 日更估计相对被利用可能性;百分位表示该 CVE 在已评分漏洞中的相对排名(越高表示相对更严重)。

# 日期 旧 EPSS 分数 新 EPSS 分数 变化(新 − 旧)
1 2026-07-07 2.73% 2.75% +0.02%
2 2026-06-15 1.10% 2.73% +1.63%
3 2026-03-30 1.10%

完整 EPSS 历史 (共 8 条)

CVE-2016-10142 的 CVSS 指标

该 CVE 的 CVSS 指标。

底座分 版本 严重度 向量 可利用性 影响 分数来源
8.6 3.0 HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H 点击展开
攻击向量 (AV:N)
经互联网或企业内可路由网段即可从远端触达,攻击者不必出现在设备旁。
攻击复杂度 (AC:L)
前置条件清晰,成功路径稳定,不依赖罕见竞态或苛刻环境。
权限要求 (PR:N)
不必事先登录或提权,匿名会话也可能成为跳板。
用户交互 (UI:N)
无需受害者点击链接、放行宏或安装软件,攻击链可自动走完。
作用域 (S:C)
可从脆弱组件横向波及其他组件或更高权限域,爆炸半径更大。
机密性影响 (C:N)
几乎谈不上实质性的敏感数据外泄。
完整性影响 (I:N)
对记录真实性与不可否认性的破坏可忽略。
可用性影响 (A:H)
可造成长时间中断、关键事务无法完成,或伴随数据损毁导致难以自愈。
3.9 4.0 [email protected]
5.0 2.0 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P 点击展开
访问路径 (AV:N)
只要路由可达,即可从远端发起利用。
访问复杂度 (AC:L)
步骤短、路径清晰,复现成本低。
认证 (AU:N)
全程无需有效身份。
机密性影响 (C:N)
对机密性无影响。
完整性影响 (I:N)
对完整性无影响。
可用性影响 (A:P)
可用性受到部分损害。
10.0 2.9 [email protected]

CVE-2016-10142 的弱点枚举

CVE-2016-10142 的 OS 跟踪

vendor priority summary link
redhat medium https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-10142
suse low https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-10142/
ubuntu medium CVE-2016-10142 medium priority: Ubuntu including 99 source packages (linux, linux-armadaxp, …), 805 status rows across 12 suites (artful, bionic, focal, jammy, noble, plucky, precise, trusty, upstream, xenial, yakkety, zesty): DNE 535, not-affected 137, released 104, ignored 29. https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2016-10142

CVE-2016-10142 的影响软件 / 配置

厂商 产品 版本 原始 CPE
ietf ipv6 cpe:2.3:a:ietf:ipv6:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

CVE-2016-10142 的参考链接

cvelogic Threat Intelligence