CVE-2016-0270 in Domino
Summary
by MITRE
IBM Domino 9.0.1 Fix Pack 3 Interim Fix 2 through 9.0.1 Fix Pack 5 Interim Fix 1, when using TLS and AES GCM, uses random nonce generation, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain the authentication key and spoof data by leveraging the reuse of a nonce in a session and a "forbidden attack." NOTE: this CVE has been incorrectly used for GCM nonce reuse issues in other products; see CVE-2016-10213 for the A10 issue, CVE-2016-10212 for the Radware issue, and CVE-2017-5933 for the Citrix issue.
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 11/02/2024
The vulnerability described in CVE-2016-0270 affects IBM Domino email and collaboration software versions 9.0.1 Fix Pack 3 Interim Fix 2 through 9.0.1 Fix Pack 5 Interim Fix 1 when utilizing TLS with AES Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) encryption. This represents a critical cryptographic flaw that stems from improper nonce generation practices within the TLS implementation. The issue specifically targets the use of AES GCM, a widely adopted authenticated encryption mode that combines encryption with authentication in a single operation. When a nonce is reused within the same session, it fundamentally compromises the security guarantees provided by GCM encryption, creating a pathway for attackers to exploit the cryptographic weakness.
The technical flaw manifests through the use of random nonce generation rather than properly incrementing or unique nonce values for each encryption operation. In AES GCM, nonces must be unique for each encryption operation within a session to maintain security properties. When nonces are reused or generated randomly without proper uniqueness guarantees, attackers can exploit this weakness to perform what is known as a "forbidden attack" where they can manipulate encrypted data and potentially recover authentication keys. This vulnerability directly relates to CWE-327, which addresses the use of weak cryptographic algorithms and improper implementation of cryptographic functions. The flaw essentially undermines the integrity protection mechanisms that GCM is designed to provide, making it possible for attackers to forge messages or decrypt information without proper authorization.
From an operational impact perspective, this vulnerability creates significant security risks for organizations relying on IBM Domino for email and collaboration services. Remote attackers who can exploit this weakness can potentially spoof data, modify encrypted communications, and gain unauthorized access to sensitive information. The attack vector requires network access to the affected Domino server, making it particularly dangerous in environments where the server is exposed to untrusted networks. The vulnerability affects the TLS protocol implementation, which is fundamental to secure communications, potentially compromising all email traffic, file transfers, and other data exchanges processed through the affected Domino server. This represents a serious degradation of the security posture for organizations relying on this software.
The mitigation strategy for this vulnerability involves applying the appropriate IBM Domino security patches and updates that address the nonce generation issue. Organizations should immediately upgrade to versions of IBM Domino that contain fixed implementations of the TLS GCM encryption with proper nonce handling. System administrators should also consider implementing additional monitoring and detection measures to identify potential exploitation attempts. The fix addresses the root cause by ensuring that nonces are properly generated and managed within TLS sessions, preventing the reuse scenarios that enable the forbidden attack. This vulnerability highlights the importance of proper cryptographic implementation practices and serves as a reminder of the critical need for rigorous security testing and validation of cryptographic components in enterprise software solutions. Organizations should also review their overall security posture and consider implementing additional controls such as network segmentation, intrusion detection systems, and regular security assessments to protect against similar vulnerabilities in other cryptographic implementations.