Skip to content

CoreWCF NetFraming based services can leave connections open when they should be closed

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 15, 2024 in CoreWCF/CoreWCF • Updated Mar 18, 2024

Package

nuget CoreWCF.NetFramingBase (NuGet)

Affected versions

>= 1.4.0, < 1.4.2
>= 1.5.0, < 1.5.2

Patched versions

1.4.2
1.5.2

Description

Impact

If you have a NetFraming based CoreWCF service, extra system resources could be consumed by connections being left established instead of closing or aborting them. There are two scenarios when this can happen. When a client established a connection to the service and sends no data, the service will wait indefinitely for the client to initiate the NetFraming session handshake. Additionally, once a client has established a session, if the client doesn't send any requests for the period of time configured in the binding ReceiveTimeout, the connection is not properly closed as part of the session being aborted.
The bindings affected by this behavior are NetTcpBinding, NetNamedPipeBinding, and UnixDomainSocketBinding. Only NetTcpBinding has the ability to accept non local connections.

Patches

The currently supported versions of CoreWCF are v1.4.x and v1.5.x. The fix can be found in v1.4.2 and v1.5.2 of the CoreWCF packages.

Workarounds

There are no workarounds.

References

CoreWCF/CoreWCF#1345

References

@mconnew mconnew published to CoreWCF/CoreWCF Mar 15, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 15, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 15, 2024
Reviewed Mar 15, 2024
Last updated Mar 18, 2024

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

0.043%
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-28252

GHSA ID

GHSA-32jq-mv89-5rx7

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.