Vulnerabilities > CVE-2021-42016 - Information Exposure Through Timing Discrepancy vulnerability in Siemens Ruggedcom ROS

047910
CVSS 7.5 - HIGH
Attack vector
NETWORK
Attack complexity
LOW
Privileges required
NONE
Confidentiality impact
HIGH
Integrity impact
NONE
Availability impact
NONE
network
low complexity
siemens
CWE-208

Summary

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. A timing attack, in a third-party component, could make the retrieval of the private key possible, used for encryption of sensitive data. If a threat actor were to exploit this, the data integrity and security could be compromised.

Vulnerable Configurations

Part Description Count
OS
Siemens
5
Hardware
Siemens
53

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Fingerprinting
    An adversary compares output from a target system to known "fingerprints" that uniquely identify specific details about the target. Fingerprinting by itself is not usually detrimental to the target. However, the information gathered through fingerprinting often enables an adversary to discover existing weaknesses in the target.
  • Cross-Domain Search Timing
    An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain. For GET requests an attacker could for instance leverage the "img" tag in conjunction with "onload() / onerror()" javascript events. For the POST requests, an attacker could leverage the "iframe" element and leverage the "onload()" event. There is nothing in the current browser security model that prevents an attacker to use these methods to time responses to the attackers' cross domain requests. The timing for these responses leaks information. For instance, if a victim has an active session with their online e-mail account, an attacker could issue search requests in the victim's mailbox. While the attacker is not able to view the responses, based on the timings of the responses, the attacker could ask yes / no questions as to the content of victim's e-mails, who the victim e-mailed, when, etc. This is but one example; There are other scenarios where an attacker could infer potentially sensitive information from cross domain requests by timing the responses while asking the right questions that leak information.