CVE-2017-7305 in RIOS
Summary
by MITRE
Riverbed RiOS through 9.6.0 does not require a bootloader password, which makes it easier for physically proximate attackers to defeat the secure-vault protection mechanism via a crafted boot. NOTE: the vendor believes that this does not meet the definition of a vulnerability. The product contains correct computational logic for a bootloader password; however, this password is optional to meet different customers' needs
Be aware that VulDB is the high quality source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 06/04/2024
The vulnerability described in CVE-2017-7305 affects Riverbed RiOS versions through 9.6.0 and represents a security design flaw that impacts the device's boot process and secure vault protection mechanisms. This issue specifically relates to the optional nature of the bootloader password, which creates a potential attack vector for physically proximate adversaries who can exploit the absence of mandatory authentication during the boot sequence. The vulnerability exists within the product's secure boot implementation where the bootloader password is not enforced as a required security control, despite the system containing the computational logic necessary to validate such authentication.
From a technical perspective, this vulnerability stems from a design decision that allows the bootloader to operate without mandatory password authentication, creating an attack surface that can be exploited by attackers with physical access to the device. The secure vault protection mechanism, which should provide a critical layer of security during the boot process, becomes ineffective when the bootloader password is not required. This creates a scenario where an attacker with physical proximity can craft a specific boot sequence that bypasses the intended security protections, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the device's secure storage and sensitive operational data.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple unauthorized access, as it fundamentally undermines the security model of the device during its most critical phase of operation. When an attacker can bypass the bootloader password requirement, they gain the ability to modify boot parameters, load unauthorized firmware, or access encrypted storage that should remain protected. This vulnerability aligns with CWE-326, which describes inadequate encryption strength, and more specifically addresses weaknesses in the secure boot process where authentication controls are not properly enforced. The attack surface is particularly concerning given that the vulnerability requires only physical proximity, making it accessible to attackers who can physically interact with the device.
The vendor's position that this does not meet their definition of a vulnerability highlights a critical distinction between security design decisions and actual security weaknesses. However, from a cybersecurity standpoint, the optional nature of a security control that should be mandatory creates a significant risk for organizations relying on these devices for critical infrastructure protection. The situation demonstrates how security controls that are designed to be optional for customer flexibility can inadvertently create security gaps when not properly enforced. This vulnerability relates to ATT&CK technique T1068, which involves exploiting local system permissions, and T1542, which covers exploitation of boot or logon process, as attackers can manipulate the boot process to bypass security controls. Organizations should consider implementing additional physical security measures and monitoring for unauthorized boot attempts as compensating controls while the vendor evaluates whether this represents a design flaw requiring a more robust security implementation.