The NATS official Rust clients are vulnerable to MitM when using TLS.
A fix for the nats
crate hasn't been released yet. Since the nats
crate is going to be deprecated anyway, consider switching to async-nats
>= 0.29
which already fixed this vulnerability.
The common name of the server's TLS certificate is validated against the host
name provided by the server's plaintext INFO
message during the initial connection setup phase. A MitM proxy can tamper with the host
field's value by substituting it with the common name of a valid certificate it controls, fooling the client into accepting it.
Reproduction steps
- The NATS Rust client tries to establish a new connection
- The connection is intercepted by a MitM proxy
- The proxy makes a separate connection to the NATS server
- The NATS server replies with an
INFO
message
- The proxy reads the
INFO
, alters the host
JSON field and passes the tampered INFO
back to the client
- The proxy upgrades the client connection to TLS, presenting a certificate issued by a certificate authority present in the client's keychain. In the previous step the
host
was set to the common name of said certificate
rustls
accepts the certificate, having verified that the common name matches the attacker-controlled value it was given
- The client has been fooled by the MitM proxy into accepting the attacker-controlled certificate
References
The NATS official Rust clients are vulnerable to MitM when using TLS.
A fix for the
nats
crate hasn't been released yet. Since thenats
crate is going to be deprecated anyway, consider switching toasync-nats
>= 0.29
which already fixed this vulnerability.The common name of the server's TLS certificate is validated against the
host
name provided by the server's plaintextINFO
message during the initial connection setup phase. A MitM proxy can tamper with thehost
field's value by substituting it with the common name of a valid certificate it controls, fooling the client into accepting it.Reproduction steps
INFO
messageINFO
, alters thehost
JSON field and passes the tamperedINFO
back to the clienthost
was set to the common name of said certificaterustls
accepts the certificate, having verified that the common name matches the attacker-controlled value it was givenReferences