CVE-2023-3347
Samba: smb2 packet signing is not enforced when "server signing = required" is set
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
CISA's decision points: whether it is exploited, whether attacks can be automated, and how much control an attacker gets. Assessed (SSVC 2.0.3).What do these mean? →
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
A vulnerability was found in Samba's SMB2 packet signing mechanism. The SMB2 packet signing is not enforced if an admin configured "server signing = required" or for SMB2 connections to Domain Controllers where SMB2 packet signing is mandatory. This flaw allows an attacker to perform attacks, such as a man-in-the-middle attack, by intercepting the network traffic and modifying the SMB2 messages between client and server, affecting the integrity of the data.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba4
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported
- samba
Version range not reported