dbcve.org
Fort ValidatorApplication · Nicmx

CVE-2024-56170

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-12-18
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 1.6.6 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
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 As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.

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 confidence

The Fort RPKI validator fails to compare the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields between newly fetched manifests and cached manifests before updating its cache. This allows a rollback attack where outdated manifests are accepted, causing route origin validation to be performed against stale data instead of current data.

MitigationUpgrade Fort to version 2.0.0 or later, which implements proper manifest freshness validation by comparing manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields before cache updates.

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
Fort ValidatorApplication
Affected:<= 1.6.6

CVSS 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
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate the Fort Validator installation
    Run 'which fort' or 'find /usr -name "fort" -type f 2>/dev/null' to find the Fort binary path
    Affected if Fort Validator is not found on the system
  2. Determine the installed version
    Run 'fort --version' or check the binary version using 'fort -V'
    Affected if The version is 1.6.6 or lower, or if the version output shows a 1.x release
  3. Verify RPKI cache functionality is in use
    Check if the system is configured to perform RPKI validation by examining configuration files in /etc/fort/ or the directory where Fort was installed, or by checking if RPKI-based route validation is configured on the local BGP daemon
    Affected if The system uses Fort for RPKI route origin validation with caching enabled
  4. Inspect the RPKI cache directory
    Look for a cache directory typically located at /var/lib/fort or a similar path configured in Fort settings; check for manifest files (.mft) stored there
    Affected if A cache directory with RPKI manifests exists, indicating the caching mechanism is active
  5. Confirm the validator processes fetched manifests
    Review Fort logs or run Fort with verbose output to observe how it handles manifest updates from RPKI repositories
    Affected if The validator fetches and stores manifests from RPKI repositories without comparing manifestNumber or thisUpdate fields to existing cached versions

The environment is affected if Nicmx Fort Validator version 1.6.6 or lower is installed and actively performing RPKI route origin validation with cache functionality enabled.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 1.6.6
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Fort to version 2.0.0 or later, which implements proper manifest freshness validation by comparing manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields before cache updates.

Recommended fix High confidence

2.0.0

  1. Verify current Fort Validator version using: fort --version or equivalent command
  2. Download Fort Validator version 2.0.0 or later from the official source (nicmx.github.io or project repository)
  3. Follow standard upgrade procedure for Fort Validator - stop the service, replace binary/package, restart the service
  4. After upgrade, verify the new version is running: fort --version
  5. Monitor validation logs to confirm manifests are being properly validated for up-to-dateness

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Fort Validator Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,900
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,040.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-56170 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-56170 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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