CVE-2020-10282 (GCVE-0-2020-10282)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2020-07-03 14:30 – Updated: 2024-09-16 17:22
VLAI?
Title
RVD#3316: No authentication in MAVLink protocol
Summary
The Micro Air Vehicle Link (MAVLink) protocol presents no authentication mechanism on its version 1.0 (nor authorization) whichs leads to a variety of attacks including identity spoofing, unauthorized access, PITM attacks and more. According to literature, version 2.0 optionally allows for package signing which mitigates this flaw. Another source mentions that MAVLink 2.0 only provides a simple authentication system based on HMAC. This implies that the flying system overall should add the same symmetric key into all devices of network. If not the case, this may cause a security issue, that if one of the devices and its symmetric key are compromised, the whole authentication system is not reliable.
Severity ?
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CWE
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
unspecified MAVLink Affected: v1.0
Create a notification for this product.
Credits
None
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-04T10:58:39.958Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://github.com/rligocki/Diploma_thesis_px4"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "MAVLink",
          "vendor": "unspecified",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "v1.0"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "None"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2020-07-03T00:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "The Micro Air Vehicle Link (MAVLink) protocol presents no authentication mechanism on its version 1.0 (nor authorization) whichs leads to a variety of attacks including identity spoofing, unauthorized access, PITM attacks and more. According to literature, version 2.0 optionally allows for package signing which mitigates this flaw. Another source mentions that MAVLink 2.0 only provides a simple authentication system based on HMAC. This implies that the flying system overall should add the same symmetric key into all devices of network. If not the case, this may cause a security issue, that if one of the devices and its symmetric key are compromised, the whole authentication system is not reliable."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV3_0": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 9.8,
            "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
            "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.0"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-306",
              "description": "CWE-306",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2020-07-03T14:30:15.000Z",
        "orgId": "dc524f69-879d-41dc-ab8f-724e78658a1a",
        "shortName": "Alias"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/rligocki/Diploma_thesis_px4"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "defect": [
          "RVD#3316"
        ],
        "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
      },
      "title": "RVD#3316: No authentication in MAVLink protocol",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Robot Vulnerability Database (RVD)"
      },
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@aliasrobotics.com",
          "DATE_PUBLIC": "2020-07-03T14:21:35 +00:00",
          "ID": "CVE-2020-10282",
          "STATE": "PUBLIC",
          "TITLE": "RVD#3316: No authentication in MAVLink protocol"
        },
        "affects": {
          "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
              {
                "product": {
                  "product_data": [
                    {
                      "product_name": "MAVLink",
                      "version": {
                        "version_data": [
                          {
                            "version_value": "v1.0"
                          }
                        ]
                      }
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "vendor_name": ""
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "credit": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "None"
          }
        ],
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "eng",
              "value": "The Micro Air Vehicle Link (MAVLink) protocol presents no authentication mechanism on its version 1.0 (nor authorization) whichs leads to a variety of attacks including identity spoofing, unauthorized access, PITM attacks and more. According to literature, version 2.0 optionally allows for package signing which mitigates this flaw. Another source mentions that MAVLink 2.0 only provides a simple authentication system based on HMAC. This implies that the flying system overall should add the same symmetric key into all devices of network. If not the case, this may cause a security issue, that if one of the devices and its symmetric key are compromised, the whole authentication system is not reliable."
            }
          ]
        },
        "generator": {
          "engine": "Robot Vulnerability Database (RVD)"
        },
        "impact": {
          "cvss": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 9.8,
            "baseSeverity": "critical",
            "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.0"
          }
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "CWE-306"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/rligocki/Diploma_thesis_px4",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://github.com/rligocki/Diploma_thesis_px4"
            }
          ]
        },
        "source": {
          "defect": [
            "RVD#3316"
          ],
          "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "dc524f69-879d-41dc-ab8f-724e78658a1a",
    "assignerShortName": "Alias",
    "cveId": "CVE-2020-10282",
    "datePublished": "2020-07-03T14:30:15.587Z",
    "dateReserved": "2020-03-10T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-09-16T17:22:38.711Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.