F5: Security Vulnerabilities
On versions 14.1.0-14.1.0.5, 14.0.0-14.0.0.4, 13.0.0-13.1.2, 12.1.0-12.1.4.1, and 11.5.2-11.6.4, an attacker sending specifically crafted DHCPv6 requests through a BIG-IP virtual server configured with a DHCPv6 profile may be able to cause the TMM process to produce a core file.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.006
Published
2019-09-04
On BIG-IP 11.5.2-11.6.4 and Enterprise Manager 3.1.1, REST users with guest privileges may be able to escalate their privileges and run commands with admin privileges.
CVSS Score
8.8
EPSS Score
0.004
Published
2019-09-04
Similar to the issue identified in CVE-2018-12120, on versions 14.1.0-14.1.0.5, 14.0.0-14.0.0.4, 13.0.0-13.1.2, and 12.1.0-12.1.4 BIG-IP will bind a debug nodejs process to all interfaces when invoked. This may expose the process to unauthorized users if the plugin is left in debug mode and the port is accessible.
CVSS Score
9.4
EPSS Score
0.008
Published
2019-09-04
On BIG-IP 14.1.0-14.1.0.5, 14.0.0-14.0.0.4, 13.0.0-13.1.2, 12.1.0-12.1.4.1, 11.5.2-11.6.4, when processing authentication attempts for control-plane users MCPD leaks a small amount of memory. Under rare conditions attackers with access to the management interface could eventually deplete memory on the system.
CVSS Score
5.3
EPSS Score
0.005
Published
2019-09-04
On version 1.9.0, If DEBUG logging is enable, F5 Container Ingress Service (CIS) for Kubernetes and Red Hat OpenShift (k8s-bigip-ctlr) log files may contain BIG-IP secrets such as SSL Private Keys and Private key Passphrases as provided as inputs by an AS3 Declaration.
CVSS Score
4.4
EPSS Score
0.001
Published
2019-09-04
On BIG-IP 14.0.0-14.1.0.5, 13.0.0-13.1.2, 12.1.0-12.1.4.1, 11.5.2-11.6.4, FTP traffic passing through a Virtual Server with both an active FTP profile associated and connection mirroring configured may lead to a TMM crash causing the configured HA action to be taken.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.008
Published
2019-09-04
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.153
Published
2019-08-13
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.049
Published
2019-08-13
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.077
Published
2019-08-13
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.045
Published
2019-08-13