VulnerabilityPublished 24 Aug 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-45234: Improper Certificate Validation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 1.6.3 : patch Fort soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Fort before 1.6.3
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Aug 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

European organizations using Fort should immediately upgrade to version 1.6.3 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. In addition, network operators should implement strict validation of RPKI data encoding to detect and reject non-canonical BER encodings before they reach Fort. Deploying monitoring tools that alert on unexpected RPKI repository behavior or Fort process crashes can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Organizations should also consider deploying redundant RPKI validators to maintain validation availability in case of a crash. Network operators can restrict access to RPKI repositories to trusted sources and monitor synchronization protocols (rsync, RRDP) for anomalies. Coordination with upstream providers and participation in information sharing groups focused on routing security can enhance situational awareness. Finally, organizations should review their incident response plans to include scenarios involving RPKI validation failures and routing hijacks.

Description

An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) an ROA or a Manifest containing a signedAttrs encoded in non-canonical form. This bypasses Fort's BER decoder, reaching a point in the code that panics when faced with data not encoded in DER. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a panic can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly ISPs, network operators, and internet exchange points that rely on Fort for RPKI validation, this vulnerability poses a serious risk to routing security and network availability. A successful exploit can cause Fort to crash, resulting in the loss of Route Origin Validation capabilities. This can lead to acceptance of invalid or malicious route announcements, enabling route hijacking, traffic interception, or denial of service through routing disruptions. Such incidents could impact critical infrastructure, financial institutions, government networks, and large enterprises dependent on stable and secure internet connectivity. The disruption of routing validation services could also undermine trust in the RPKI system, complicating incident response and remediation efforts. Given the network-wide impact of routing anomalies, the consequences can extend beyond a single organization, affecting broader internet stability and security within Europe.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 21:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats