Products: 2
    Vulnerabilities: 10
    Known Exploited: 0
    1
    Critical Level Threats
    6
    High Level Threats
    2
    Medium Level Threats
    0
    Low Level Threats

    Vulnerabilities

    100806040200
    JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
    Critical Level Threats
    High Level Threats
    Medium Level Threats
    Low Level Threats

    Products Security index

    Actions
    Items Per Page

    Vulnerabilities

    CVE-2026-53499

    FORT-validator Vulnerable to RRDP Shared Snapshot Cache Poisoning

    Last Modified: Aug 25, 2026
    Published: Aug 21, 2026

    CVE-2024-56375

    An integer underflow was discovered in Fort 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 before 1.6.5. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) a Manifest RPKI object containing an empty fileList. Fort dereferences (and, shortly afterwards, writes to) this array during a shuffle attempt, before the validation that would normally reject it when empty. This out-of-bounds access is caused by an integer underflow that causes the surrounding loop to iterate infinitely. Because the product is permanently stuck attempting to overshuffle an array that doesn't actually exist, a crash is nearly guaranteed.

    Last Modified: Apr 22, 2025
    Published: Dec 22, 2024

    CVE-2024-56169

    A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.

    Last Modified: Apr 22, 2025
    Published: Dec 18, 2024

    CVE-2024-56170

    A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.

    Last Modified: Apr 22, 2025
    Published: Dec 18, 2024

    CVE-2024-45235

    An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) a resource certificate containing an Authority Key Identifier extension that lacks the keyIdentifier field. Fort references this pointer without sanitizing it first. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a crash can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing.

    Last Modified: Nov 03, 2025
    Published: Aug 24, 2024
    Items Per Page