RADIUS Protocol under RFC 2865 is susceptible to forgery attacks by a local attacker who can modify any valid Response (Access-Accept, Access-Reject, or Access-Challenge) to any other response using a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 Response Authenticator signature.

A flaw was found in freeradius. A malicious RADIUS client or home server can send a malformed abinary attribute which can cause the server to crash.

In freeradius, when an EAP-SIM supplicant sends an unknown SIM option, the server will try to look that option up in the internal dictionaries. This lookup will fail, but the SIM code will not check for that failure. Instead, it will dereference a NULL pointer, and cause the server to crash.

In freeradius, the EAP-PWD function compute_password_element() leaks information about the password which allows an attacker to substantially reduce the size of an offline dictionary attack.

In FreeRADIUS 3.0.x before 3.0.20, the EAP-pwd module used a global OpenSSL BN_CTX instance to handle all handshakes. This mean multiple threads use the same BN_CTX instance concurrently, resulting in crashes when concurrent EAP-pwd handshakes are initiated. This can be abused by an adversary as a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack.

add_password in pam_radius_auth.c in pam_radius 1.4.0 does not correctly check the length of the input password, and is vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow during memcpy(). An attacker could send a crafted password to an application (loading the pam_radius library) and crash it. Arbitrary code execution might be possible, depending on the application, C library, compiler, and other factors.

In FreeRADIUS 3.0 through 3.0.19, on average 1 in every 2048 EAP-pwd handshakes fails because the password element cannot be found within 10 iterations of the hunting and pecking loop. This leaks information that an attacker can use to recover the password of any user. This information leakage is similar to the "Dragonblood" attack and CVE-2019-9494.

It was discovered freeradius up to and including version 3.0.19 does not correctly configure logrotate, allowing a local attacker who already has control of the radiusd user to escalate his privileges to root, by tricking logrotate into writing a radiusd-writable file to a directory normally inaccessible by the radiusd user. NOTE: the upstream software maintainer has stated "there is simply no way for anyone to gain privileges through this alleged issue."

FreeRADIUS before 3.0.19 mishandles the "each participant verifies that the received scalar is within a range, and that the received group element is a valid point on the curve being used" protection mechanism, aka a "Dragonblood" issue, a similar issue to CVE-2019-9498 and CVE-2019-9499.

FreeRADIUS before 3.0.19 does not prevent use of reflection for authentication spoofing, aka a "Dragonblood" issue, a similar issue to CVE-2019-9497.