OpenFlow version 1.0 onwards contains a Denial of Service and Improper authorization vulnerability in OpenFlow handshake: The DPID (DataPath IDentifier) in the features_reply message are inherently trusted by the controller. that can result in Denial of Service, Unauthorized Access, Network Instability. This attack appear to be exploitable via Network connectivity: the attacker must first establish a transport connection with the OpenFlow controller and then initiate the OpenFlow handshake.

Open Networking Foundation (ONF) ONOS version 1.13.2 and earlier version contains a Directory Traversal vulnerability in core/common/src/main/java/org/onosproject/common/app/ApplicationArchive.java line 35 that can result in arbitrary file deletion (overwrite). This attack appear to be exploitable via a specially crafted zip file should be uploaded.

Authentication Bypass by Spoofing in org.onosproject.acl (access control) and org.onosproject.mobility (host mobility) in ONOS v2.0 and earlier allows attackers to bypass network access control via data plane packet injection. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker sends a gratuitous ARP reply that causes the host mobility application to remove existing access control flow denial rules in the network. The access control application does not re-install flow deny rules, so the attacker can bypass the intended access control policy.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. In IntentManager, the install-requested intent (which causes an exception) remains in pendingMap (in memory) forever. Deletion is possible neither by a user nor by the intermittent Intent Cleanup process.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. There is an incorrect comparison of flow rules installed by intents. A remote attacker can install or remove a new intent, and consequently modify or delete the existing flow rules related to other intents.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. The purge-requested intent remains on the list, but it does not respond to changes in topology (e.g., link failure). In combination with other applications, it could lead to a failure of network management.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. To attack an intent installed by a normal user, a remote attacker can install a duplicate intent with a different key, and then remove the duplicate one. This will remove the flow rules of the intent, even though the intent still exists in the controller.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with an uppercase letter in a device ID shows the CORRUPT state, which is misleading to a network operator. Improper handling of case sensitivity causes inconsistency between intent and flow rules in the network.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. IntentManager attempts to install the IPv6 flow rules of an intent into an OpenFlow 1.0 switch that does not support IPv6. Improper handling of the difference in capabilities of the intent and switch is misleading to a network operator.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with a large port number shows the CORRUPT state, which is misleading to a network operator. Improper handling of such port numbers causes inconsistency between intent and flow rules in the network.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. Modification of an existing intent to have the same source and destination shows the INSTALLED state without any flow rule. Improper handling of such an intent is misleading to a network operator.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with a port that is an intermediate point of its path installs an invalid flow rule, causing a network loop.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with the same source and destination shows the INSTALLING state, indicating that its flow rules are installing. Improper handling of such an intent is misleading to a network operator.

An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. There is an incorrect comparison of paths installed by intents. An existing intents does not redirect to a new path, even if a new intent that shares the path with higher priority is installed.

A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Open Networking Foundation ONOS from version v1.9.0 to v2.7.0 allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into the url parameter of the API documentation dashboard.

An issue in Open Network Foundation ONOS v2.7.0 allows attackers to create fake IP/MAC addresses and potentially execute a man-in-the-middle attack on communications between fake and real hosts.

An issue in Open Network Foundation ONOS v2.7.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via supplying crafted packets.

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (component upf-epc/pfcpiface) up to at least version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Association Setup Request that is missing the mandatory NodeID Information Element, the association setup handler dereferences a nil pointer instead of validating the message, causing a panic and terminating the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Association Setup Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-upf (upf-epc-pfcpiface) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Association Setup Request that is missing the mandatory Recovery Time Stamp Information Element, the association setup handler dereferences a nil pointer via IE.RecoveryTimeStamp() instead of validating the message. This results in a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Association Setup Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association is established, a PFCP Session Establishment Request that is missing the mandatory F-SEID (CPF-SEID) Information Element is not properly validated. The session establishment handler calls IE.FSEID() on a nil pointer, which triggers a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association, a specially crafted PFCP Session Establishment Request with a CreatePDR that contains a malformed Flow-Description is not robustly validated. The Flow-Description parser (parseFlowDesc) can read beyond the bounds of the provided buffer, causing a panic and terminating the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF.

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association, a PFCP Session Establishment Request that includes a CreateFAR with an empty or truncated IPv4 address field is not properly validated. During parsing, parseFAR() calls ip2int(), which performs an out-of-bounds read on the IPv4 address buffer and triggers an index-out-of-range panic. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.