VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2024Updated 26 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-56170: Fort · Origin Validation Error

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.0.0 : update Fort when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Fort through 1.6.4
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.0

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

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

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Dec 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-56170, organizations should: 1) Upgrade Fort software to version 2.0.0 or later once available, as this version is expected to properly validate manifest freshness and prevent rollback attacks. 2) Until patches are available, implement additional validation mechanisms such as out-of-band verification of manifest updates or cross-checking manifests from multiple trusted RPKI repositories to detect rollbacks. 3) Restrict network access to RPKI repositories to trusted sources and monitor network traffic for anomalous manifest updates or repeated older manifest deliveries. 4) Employ monitoring and alerting on routing anomalies that may indicate compromised route origin validation. 5) Engage with Fort support or vendor channels to obtain interim fixes or guidance. 6) Educate network operations teams about the risk of manifest rollback and the importance of timely software updates. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on layered validation, network controls, and operational awareness specific to RPKI manifest handling.

Description

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.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-56170 is the potential acceptance of outdated or revoked route origin data due to rollback attacks on RPKI manifests. This can lead to incorrect routing decisions, potentially enabling route hijacking, traffic interception, or denial of service through misrouted traffic. Organizations relying on Fort for RPKI validation may experience degraded routing security, increasing the risk of BGP prefix hijacking or route leaks. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system confidentiality or availability, the indirect impact on network integrity and trustworthiness can be significant, especially for ISPs, cloud providers, and large enterprises that depend on accurate route origin validation to protect their network infrastructure. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability presents a persistent threat vector that could be leveraged by sophisticated attackers or misconfigurations. The scope includes all deployments of affected Fort versions performing RPKI validation, which are typically found in network operators and security-conscious organizations.

Summary

CVE-2024-56170 is a vulnerability in Fort software versions through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0 related to the handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) manifests. RPKI manifests list relevant files that clients must verify to ensure the authenticity and freshness of routing origin data. Each manifest contains a manifestNumber (a sequential serial number) and a thisUpdate timestamp, both used to determine the most recent and thus valid manifest. The vulnerability arises because the Fort product does not compare the freshness of the newly fetched manifest against the cached one. Consequently, an attacker or misconfigured server can serve an older but valid manifest, causing the client to rollback to an outdated manifest version. This rollback undermines the integrity of route origin validation by allowing acceptance of stale or revoked routing information. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the system, it weakens the trust model of RPKI-based routing security. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 5.3 (medium), reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges or user interaction required, and limited confidentiality impact. No known exploits have been reported in the wild. The weakness corresponds to CWE-346 (Origin Validation Error). There are no published patches yet, but upgrading to Fort 2.0.0 or later is expected to resolve the issue by properly validating manifest freshness.

CWE-346Origin Validation Error (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Exploit Script-Based APIs (opens in a new tab)
Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 02:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-346

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats