CVE-2024-56170
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests...
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 As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.
Attack profile
How easy it is to exploit
- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges needed
- None
- User interaction
- None
What an attacker can affect
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Exploit likelihood
What each source reports
CVE List Score used
5.3
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 As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.
- Record
CVE-2024-56170- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Weakness
- CWE-346
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2024-52994
5.3
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.
- Record
EUVD-2024-52994- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Updated
- 2026-11-03
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-hjvf-q4w6-qv8p
5.3
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests...
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.
- Record
GHSA-hjvf-q4w6-qv8p- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Weakness
- CWE-346
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
NVD
5.3
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.
- Record
CVE-2024-56170- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Weakness
- CWE-346
- Updated
- 2026-11-02
OSV
5.3
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.
- Record
CVE-2024-56170- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Updated
- 2026-11-02
OSVDEBIAN-CVE-2024-56170
5.3
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.
- Record
DEBIAN-CVE-2024-56170- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Updated
- 2026-11-02
OSVUBUNTU-CVE-2024-56170
5.3
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.
- Record
UBUNTU-CVE-2024-56170- CVSS 3.1
- 5.3 Medium
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N - Updated
- 2026-11-02
Affected products
Affected packages
| Package | Affected | Fixed |
|---|---|---|
fort-validatorDebian:12 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.5.4-11.5.4-1+deb12u11.6.1-11.6.1-1~bpo12+21.6.2-1 Show 11 moreShow less1.6.3-11.6.3-1~bpo12+11.6.4+20240930-11.6.4+20240930-1~bpo12+11.6.5-11.6.6-11.6.6-1~bpo12+11.6.7-11.6.7-1~bpo13+11.6.8-11.7.0.experimental-1 |
None known |
fort-validatorDebian:13 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.6.6-11.6.7-11.6.7-1~bpo13+11.6.8-0+deb13u11.6.8-11.7.0.experimental-1 |
None known |
fort-validatorDebian:14 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.6.6-11.6.7-11.6.7-1~bpo13+11.6.8-11.7.0.experimental-1 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.1.1-21.1.2-11.1.3-11.2.0-11.2.0-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:22.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.5.1-11.5.2-11.5.3-11.5.3-1build11.5.3-1ubuntu0.1 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:Pro:24.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.5.4-11.6.1-11.6.1-1build21.6.1-1build31.6.1-1ubuntu0.1~esm2 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:25.10 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.6.6-11.6.6-1build1 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:26.10 |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.6.7-11.6.8-11.7.0.experimental-1 |
None known |
fort-validatorUbuntu:26.04:LTS |
All versions, plus listed versions 1.6.6-1build11.6.7-1 |
None known |
History
| Recorded | Changed | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| aliases | EUVD | |
| first indexed | CVE List, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV |
Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.
In short
CVE-2024-56170 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 5.3) in Nicmx Fort-validator, published December 18, 2024. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.21%, the 11th percentile. No source names a fixed version.