CVE-2024-56169

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.