Exploiting Sequence Number Leakage: TCP Hijacking in NAT-Enabled Wi-Fi Networks

April 06, 2024 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Network and Distributed System Security Symposium

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Yuxiang Yang, Xuewei Feng, Qi Li, Kun Sun, Ziqiang Wang, Ke Xu arXiv ID 2404.04601 Category cs.CR: Cryptography & Security Citations 7 Venue Network and Distributed System Security Symposium Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
In this paper, we uncover a new side-channel vulnerability in the widely used NAT port preservation strategy and an insufficient reverse path validation strategy of Wi-Fi routers, which allows an off-path attacker to infer if there is one victim client in the same network communicating with another host on the Internet using TCP. After detecting the presence of TCP connections between the victim client and the server, the attacker can evict the original NAT mapping and reconstruct a new mapping at the router by sending fake TCP packets due to the routers' vulnerability of disabling TCP window tracking strategy, which has been faithfully implemented in most of the routers for years. In this way, the attacker can intercept TCP packets from the server and obtain the current sequence and acknowledgment numbers, which in turn allows the attacker to forcibly close the connection, poison the traffic in plain text, or reroute the server's incoming packets to the attacker. We test 67 widely used routers from 30 vendors and discover that 52 of them are affected by this attack. Also, we conduct an extensive measurement study on 93 real-world Wi-Fi networks. The experimental results show that 75 of these evaluated Wi-Fi networks (81%) are fully vulnerable to our attack. Our case study shows that it takes about 17.5, 19.4, and 54.5 seconds on average to terminate an SSH connection, download private files from FTP servers, and inject fake HTTP response packets with success rates of 87.4%, 82.6%, and 76.1%. We responsibly disclose the vulnerability and suggest mitigation strategies to all affected vendors and have received positive feedback, including acknowledgments, CVEs, rewards, and adoption of our suggestions.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Cryptography & Security

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted