<!--X-Body-Begin-->
<!--X-User-Header-->
oss-sec
mailing list archives
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
<!--X-TopPNI-->
By Date
By Thread
</form>
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-->
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
Re: 83 bogus CVEs assigned to Robot Operating System (ROS)
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
From: Mark Esler <mark.esler () canonical com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:26:28 -0500
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
Reporting security issues to ROS 2 with proof of concepts and by
following their disclosure policy would be appreciated and valued.
https://ros.org/reps/rep-2006.html
I recommend asking upstream for advice and sharing your manuscript with
them.
Mark Esler
On 4/22/24 20:52, Yash Patel wrote:
Thank you for your detailed overview regarding the CVEs attributed to
our research on ROS/ROS 2. We appreciate the scrutiny and understand
the concerns raised by you and other parties.
I want to clarify that our findings are based on extensive tests
conducted in real-world scenarios within controlled laboratory
settings, where actual robots were subjected to attacks. This method
is crucial as it transcends theoretical analysis and involves direct
interaction with the equipment that is still operational in many
industrial sectors, although on unsupported ROS/ROS2 versions.
We acknowledge that the CVE descriptions were initially drafted at a
high level and may not have included comprehensive technical details.
This was due to pending publication of our full research papers, which
delve deeper into the specifics of each vulnerability. We are
preparing a separate document to address this gap, providing the
evidence and methodologies employed during our research.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that while some ROS versions are no
longer supported by the official development team, they are still
actively used in various industries. Our work aims to highlight
security risks that could affect these legacy systems, thereby aiding
in proactive cybersecurity measures.
We are open to dialogue and further investigation by third-party
experts. If the consent remains suspicious of the vulnerability
claims, we are prepared to request revocation of the CVEs to maintain
the integrity of the reporting process. Our primary goal is to
contribute positively to the security of the robotic ecosystem, and we
are committed to transparency and collaboration to achieve this.
Looking forward to your constructive feedback and hoping for an
opportunity to discuss our findings in detail.
*Yash Patel*
Ph.D. Research Scholar
National Forensic Sciences University
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
[An Institution of National Importance]
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 5:22 AM Mark Esler <mark.esler () canonical com>
wrote:
Yash Patel and Dr. Parag Rughani are credited as the discoverers for
eighty-three recent CVEs affecting ROS 2 which the MITRE TL-Root CNA
assigned.
All CVE descriptions are written at a very high, vague, level. No
specifics or evidence has been provided to backup vulnerability
claims.
Three CVEs (CVE-2023-33565, CVE-2023-33566, and CVE-2023-33567)
reference the discoverer's 2022 ACM paper "Analyzing Security
Vulnerability and Forensic Investigation of ROS2: A Case Study"
[0]. The
more technical portion of this paper was confirmed [1] to be based
on a
ROS 2 beginner tutorial [2]. The paper does not attribute ROS 2
documentation.
Some CVEs claim that a security update will be forthcoming from
the ROS
2 development team [3]. Privately [4], ROS 2 core developers
stated that
they were not contacted and "came to the conclusion that [these CVEs]
were likely not real security vulnerabilities.".
Certain CVEs describe unlikely situations. For instance,
CVE-2024-30737
claims: "A critical vulnerability has been identified in ROS Kinetic
Kame, particularly in configurations with ROS_VERSION=1 and
ROS_PYTHON_VERSION=3." [5]. ROS Kinetic Kame supports Python 2, not
Python 3.
Frankly, all descriptions appear to be copy-pasted or generated to
_sound_ like security issues. No evidence has been provided in the
ACM
paper or the 83 CVEs to suggest that vulnerabilities actually exist.
CVE revocation requests have been sent to MITRE and CVE descriptions
have been appended with: "NOTE: this is disputed by multiple third
parties who believe there was not reasonable evidence to determine
the
existence of a vulnerability."
The CVE IDs are: CVE-2023-33565, CVE-2023-33566, CVE-2023-33567,
CVE-2023-51197, CVE-2023-51198, CVE-2023-51199, CVE-2023-51200,
CVE-2023-51201, CVE-2023-51202, CVE-2023-51204, CVE-2023-51208,
CVE-2024-29439, CVE-2024-29440, CVE-2024-29441, CVE-2024-29442,
CVE-2024-29443, CVE-2024-29444, CVE-2024-29445, CVE-2024-29447,
CVE-2024-29448, CVE-2024-29449, CVE-2024-29450, CVE-2024-29452,
CVE-2024-29454, CVE-2024-29455, CVE-2024-30657, CVE-2024-30658,
CVE-2024-30659, CVE-2024-30661, CVE-2024-30662, CVE-2024-30663,
CVE-2024-30665, CVE-2024-30666, CVE-2024-30667, CVE-2024-30672,
CVE-2024-30674, CVE-2024-30675, CVE-2024-30676, CVE-2024-30678,
CVE-2024-30679, CVE-2024-30680, CVE-2024-30681, CVE-2024-30683,
CVE-2024-30684, CVE-2024-30686, CVE-2024-30687, CVE-2024-30688,
CVE-2024-30690, CVE-2024-30691, CVE-2024-30692, CVE-2024-30694,
CVE-2024-30695, CVE-2024-30696, CVE-2024-30697, CVE-2024-30699,
CVE-2024-30701, CVE-2024-30702, CVE-2024-30703, CVE-2024-30704,
CVE-2024-30706, CVE-2024-30707, CVE-2024-30708, CVE-2024-30710,
CVE-2024-30711, CVE-2024-30712, CVE-2024-30713, CVE-2024-30715,
CVE-2024-30716, CVE-2024-30718, CVE-2024-30719, CVE-2024-30721,
CVE-2024-30722, CVE-2024-30723, CVE-2024-30724, CVE-2024-30726,
CVE-2024-30727, CVE-2024-30728, CVE-2024-30729, CVE-2024-30730,
CVE-2024-30733, CVE-2024-30735, CVE-2024-30736, and CVE-2024-30737
Many thanks to Florencia Cabral Berenfus for her analysis of these
claims!
Mark Esler
[0] https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3573910.3573912
[1] https://github.com/yashpatelphd/CVE-2024-30737/issues/1
[2]
https://docs.ros.org/en/foxy/Tutorials/Beginner-Client-Libraries/Writing-A-Simple-Py-Service-And-Client.html
[3] https://github.com/yashpatelphd/CVE-2023-33565
[4] message ID
<CAE6X0kjYCMS4qRYP9Bohx88ue9ReedbPr=FFh+hNs+2RkOGeLg () mail gmail com
<mailto:FFh%2BhNs%2B2RkOGeLg () mail gmail com>>
[5] https://github.com/yashpatelphd/CVE-2024-30737
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
By Date
By Thread
Current thread:
83 bogus CVEs assigned to Robot Operating System (ROS) Mark Esler (Apr 23)
Re: 83 bogus CVEs assigned to Robot Operating System (ROS) Yash Patel (Apr 23)
Re: 83 bogus CVEs assigned to Robot Operating System (ROS) Mark Esler (Apr 23)
Re: 83 bogus CVEs assigned to Robot Operating System (ROS) Yash Patel (Apr 23)
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
Vulmon