While developing a plugin to test Cisco ASA devices, it was discovered that additional Cisco routers configured with IKEv2 are vulnerable to the remote overflow (CVE-2016-1287) as well. The Cisco advisory covering the vulnerability in the ASA does not mention any non-security devices as being impacted. Based on our testing, several 'regular' routers are vulnerable which suggests this may be a systemic problem in the IOS codebase, and may affect any Cisco device that supports IKEv2 (and possibly IKEv1) functionality.
By creating a Cisco fragmentation payload (ID 132) that is less than 7 bytes, a remote attacker can crash the router. After further investigation it appears that the Cisco router being tested is also affected by the integer underflow bug described in Exodus Intel's "Execute My Packet" advisory. In the
ikev2_add_rcv_frag() function, the length of the received fragment is not checked at the beginning of the function, as it is in a patched ASA device.
After some checking on fragment ID and fragment number to make sure they are proper, the length of the received fragment is added to the length of an IKEv2 message to be assembled, and the fragment is added to the fragment list to be assembled when the last fragment is received. In the
ikev2_get_assembled_pkt() function, when the last fragment is received, the function starts to assemble the fragments stored by
ikev2_add_rcv_frag(). It pulls up all the fragmentation payloads (complete payload format with header), calculates the size of the data carried in each fragmentation payload by subtracting 8 (size of fragmentation payload header) from the fragment length, and copies the fragment data to an assembly buffer.
This appears to be the same or very similar issue described in Exodus Intel's advisory, and that Cisco didn't seem to patch their routers supporting its own fragmentation protocol (payload ID 132).
Based on testing, and the devices Tenable has access to, we believe this will likely impact any Cisco IOS device that supports IKEv2 (and possibly IKEv1) with fragmentation enabled. While a remote denial of service was confirmed, Tenable did not do further testing for remote code execution potential, but we cannot rule that out.