Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[AMF] Issue during Concurrent UE Registration (#2839) #2876

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2024
Merged

[AMF] Issue during Concurrent UE Registration (#2839) #2876

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2024

Conversation

acetcom
Copy link
Member

@acetcom acetcom commented Jan 13, 2024

While they were continuing their fuzzy testing and developing PacketRusher, an unusual issue with the AMF was observed. The problem arises when a single Ethernet frame containing three bundled SCTP chunks is sent. This behavior is reproduced with PacketRusher when attempting to concurrently register two UEs with the same MSIN.

The expected behavior is that the PDU Session Establishment Accept is sent inside a DownlinkNASTransport to RAN UE NGAP ID 1. However, it is actually sent inside an InitialContextSetupRequest to RAN UE NGAP ID 2. The MAC of this NAS message is invalid for the Security Context of RAN UE NGAP ID 2 (probably valid for RAN UE NGAP ID 1)

While they were continuing their fuzzy testing and developing PacketRusher, an unusual issue with the AMF was observed. The problem arises when a single Ethernet frame containing three bundled SCTP chunks is sent. This behavior is reproduced with PacketRusher when attempting to concurrently register two UEs with the same MSIN.

The expected behavior is that the PDU Session Establishment Accept is sent inside a DownlinkNASTransport to RAN UE NGAP ID 1. However, it is actually sent inside an InitialContextSetupRequest to RAN UE NGAP ID 2. The MAC of this NAS message is invalid for the Security Context of RAN UE NGAP ID 2 (probably valid for RAN UE NGAP ID 1)
@acetcom acetcom merged commit b0cf9fc into main Jan 13, 2024
6 checks passed
@acetcom acetcom deleted the i2839 branch January 13, 2024 14:16
@linouxis9
Copy link

Thanks a lot :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants