Skip to content

Free5GC AMF has Missing Concurrent NAS SMC Validation During NGAP Handover

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 7, 2026 in free5gc/free5gc • Updated Jun 8, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/free5gc/amf (Go)

Affected versions

<= 1.4.3

Patched versions

None

Description

Summary

The AMF in Free5GC v4.2.1 does not enforce the concurrent security procedure rules defined in 3GPP TS 33.501 §6.9.5.1. The AMF does not check for ongoing N2 handover procedures before initiating a NAS Security Mode Command, and vice versa. This can lead to mismatches between NAS and AS security contexts in the network and the UE.

Details

Vulnerability Type: CWE-358 (Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard)

Affected File: internal/ngap/handler.gohandleHandoverRequiredMain() and internal/gmm/sm.goSecurityMode()

Root Cause:

3GPP TS 33.501 §6.9.5.1 states:

"Concurrent runs of security procedures may, in certain situations, lead to mismatches between security contexts in the network and the UE. In order to avoid such mismatches, the following rules shall be adhered to:

  1. AMF shall not initiate any of the N2 procedures including a new key towards a UE if a NAS Security Mode Command procedure is ongoing with the UE.
  2. The AMF shall not initiate a NAS Security Mode Command towards a UE if one of the N2 procedures including a new key is ongoing with the UE."

Free5GC AMF uses an OnGoing state tracking mechanism (SetOnGoing(), GetOnGoing()) with OnGoingProcedureN2Handover type. However, the cross-procedure checks required by §6.9.5.1 are not implemented:

Rule 2 violation:
SecurityMode() in internal/gmm/sm.go sends SMC on EntryEvent without checking if N2 handover is ongoing.

Rule 1 violation:
handleHandoverRequiredMain() in internal/ngap/handler.go calls SetOnGoing(OnGoingProcedureN2Handover) without checking if SMC is ongoing.

Why NH/NCC and SMC are related:

SMC activates a new KAMF, which changes the basis for NH key derivation. The N2 HandoverRequest includes NH/NCC derived from the old KAMF. If both procedures run concurrently, the target gNB and UE derive different KgNB keys, breaking AS security.

PoC

Source code evidence:

Free5GC AMF internal/gmm/sm.goSecurityMode():

func SecurityMode(state *fsm.State, event fsm.EventType, args fsm.ArgsType) {
    switch event {
    case fsm.EntryEvent:
        // No check for OnGoing N2 procedure
        // Directly proceeds to SMC

Free5GC AMF internal/ngap/handler.gohandleHandoverRequiredMain():

amfUe.SetOnGoing(sourceUe.Ran.AnType, &context.OnGoing{
    Procedure: context.OnGoingProcedureN2Handover,
})
// No check for ongoing SMC before setting N2

Packet Evidence (pcap available):

Packet Time Message Description
#1 0.000s HandoverRequired gNB_A requests handover
#18 0.002s HandoverRequest N2 started (NH/NCC included)
(no response from gNB_B) N2 ongoing
#28 2.062s Registration request UE re-registers (same SUPI)
#63 2.069s Authentication request
#64 2.070s Authentication response
#71 2.072s Security mode command SMC during N2 ongoing = Rule 2 violation
NGAPHandover-N2-SMC-Concurrent.zip

Impact

Integrity (MEDIUM): Concurrent NAS and AS security procedures can cause security context mismatches between UE, AMF, and gNB. The SMC activates a new KAMF while the N2 HandoverRequest carries NH/NCC derived from the old KAMF, resulting in KgNB derivation mismatch.

Availability (LOW): Security context mismatch may cause handover failure or security verification failures.

References

@Alonza0314 Alonza0314 published to free5gc/free5gc May 7, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 7, 2026
Reviewed May 7, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 27, 2026
Last updated Jun 8, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(13th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard

The product does not implement or incorrectly implements one or more security-relevant checks as specified by the design of a standardized algorithm, protocol, or technique. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-42082

GHSA ID

GHSA-vrrx-58h3-prmh

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.