CVE-2021-32642
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedradsecproxy is a generic RADIUS proxy that supports both UDP and TLS (RadSec) RADIUS transports. Missing input validation in radsecproxy's `naptr-eduroam.sh` and `radsec-dynsrv.sh` scripts can lead to configuration injection via crafted radsec peer discovery DNS records. Users are subject to Information disclosure, Denial of Service, Redirection of Radius connection to a non-authenticated server leading to non-authenticated network access. Updated example scripts are available in the master branch and 1.9 release. Note that the scripts are not part of the installation package and are not updated automatically. If you are using the examples, you have to update them manually. The dyndisc scripts work independently of the radsecproxy code. The updated scripts can be used with any version of radsecproxy.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceradsecproxy contains example discovery scripts (naptr-eduroam.sh and radsec-dynsrv.sh) that parse DNS NAPTR records for RadSec peer discovery without validating the parsed values, allowing attackers to inject configuration parameters via specially crafted DNS records. This enables information disclosure, DoS, and redirection of RADIUS connections to attacker-controlled servers.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 33= 34< 1.9.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check radsecproxy installation and versionQuery the installed package version (e.g., rpm -q radsecproxy, dpkg -l radsecproxy, or radsecproxy -v)Affected if Version is less than 1.9.0 on Fedora 33/34 or any version < 1.9.0 of Uninett radsecproxy
-
Locate the example discovery scriptsSearch for naptr-eduroam.sh and radsec-dynsrv.sh in common locations such as /usr/share/doc/, /usr/local/share/, or the original source treeAffected if These scripts are present on the system
-
Verify if dynamic peer discovery is enabledExamine the radsecproxy configuration file for 'dynsrv' or 'naptr' directives, or lines that invoke the example scriptsAffected if Configuration references dynamic peer discovery using NAPTR records
-
Check if scripts are actively referenced in runtime configurationInspect config for 'exec' or 'dynamicServer' directives pointing to naptr-eduroam.sh or radsec-dynsrv.shAffected if The scripts are executed by the configuration for peer discovery
A user is affected if radsecproxy version is below 1.9.0 AND the example discovery scripts (naptr-eduroam.sh or radsec-dynsrv.sh) are deployed and actively used for NAPTR-based dynamic peer discovery.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped1.9.0
Update the example scripts (naptr-eduroam.sh and radsec-dynsrv.sh) to the fixed versions from the radsecproxy master branch or 1.9 release, as these scripts are not included in the installation package and require manual updating.
radsecproxy 1.9.0 (or updated example scripts from master/1.9 branch)
- 1. Identify if you are using the vulnerable scripts: naptr-eduroam.sh or radsec-dynsrv.sh from radsecproxy examples
- 2. Locate the directory containing these example scripts in your deployment
- 3. Download the updated versions of naptr-eduroam.sh and radsec-dynsrv.sh from the radsecproxy master branch or 1.9 release (available at github.com/radsecproxy/radsecproxy)
- 4. Replace the existing vulnerable script files with the updated versions
- 5. Verify the new scripts have proper input validation by reviewing the code changes
- 6. Restart any radsecproxy or discovery services using these scripts
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-32642 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-32642 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data