||Multiple buffer overflows in Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) libFLAC before 1.2.1 allow user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via large (1) Metadata Block Size, (2) VORBIS Comment String Size, (3) Picture Metadata MIME-TYPE Size, (4) Picture Description Size, (5) Picture Data Length, (6) Padding Length, and (7) PICTURE Metadata width and height values in a .FLAC file, which result in a heap-based overflow; and large (8) VORBIS Comment String Size Length, (9) Picture MIME-Type, (10) Picture MIME-Type URL, and (11) Picture Description Length values in a .FLAC file, which result in a stack-based overflow. NOTE: some of these issues may overlap CVE-2007-4619.
|Base: ||9.3 (as of 15-10-2018 - 21:51)|
Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The attacker crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An attacker who has access to an API may try to embed malicious code in the API function call and exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in the function's implementation. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the attacker finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
An adversary manipulates an application's interaction with a buffer in an attempt to read or modify data they shouldn't have access to. Buffer attacks are distinguished in that it is the buffer space itself that is the target of the attack rather than any code responsible for interpreting the content of the buffer. In virtually all buffer attacks the content that is placed in the buffer is immaterial. Instead, most buffer attacks involve retrieving or providing more input than can be stored in the allocated buffer, resulting in the reading or overwriting of other unintended program memory.
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the attacker knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An attacker can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service.
Overflow Binary Resource File
An attack of this type exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the handling of binary resources. Binary resources may include music files like MP3, image files like JPEG files, and any other binary file. These attacks may pass unnoticed to the client machine through normal usage of files, such as a browser loading a seemingly innocent JPEG file. This can allow the attacker access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process. This attack pattern is a variant of standard buffer overflow attacks using an unexpected vector (binary files) to wrap its attack and open up a new attack vector. The attacker is required to either directly serve the binary content to the victim, or place it in a locale like a MP3 sharing application, for the victim to download. The attacker then is notified upon the download or otherwise locates the vulnerability opened up by the buffer overflow.
An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back.
Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An attacker can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
Buffer Overflow attacks target improper or missing bounds checking on buffer operations, typically triggered by input injected by an adversary. As a consequence, an adversary is able to write past the boundaries of allocated buffer regions in memory, causing a program crash or potentially redirection of execution as per the adversaries' choice.
|name||Aharon Chernin |
|organization||SCAP.com, LLC |
|name||Dragos Prisaca |
|organization||G2, Inc. |
|comment||The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 |
|comment||CentOS Linux 4.x |
|comment||Oracle Linux 4.x |
|comment||The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 |
|comment||The operating system installed on the system is CentOS Linux 5.x |
|comment||Oracle Linux 5.x |
|description|| stack-based overflow. NOTE: some of these issues may overlap CVE-2007-4619. |
|title|| NOTE: some of these issues may overlap CVE-2007-4619. |
|title||CVE-2007-6277 libflac: Multiple security issues fixed in 1.2.1 |
|comment||Red Hat Enterprise Linux must be installed |
|comment||Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 is installed |
|comment||flac is earlier than 0:1.1.0-7.el4_5.2 |
|comment||flac is signed with Red Hat master key |
|comment||flac-devel is earlier than 0:1.1.0-7.el4_5.2 |
|comment||flac-devel is signed with Red Hat master key |
|comment||xmms-flac is earlier than 0:1.1.0-7.el4_5.2 |
|comment||xmms-flac is signed with Red Hat master key |
|comment||Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 is installed |
|comment||flac is earlier than 0:1.1.2-28.el5_0.1 |
|comment||flac is signed with Red Hat redhatrelease key |
|comment||flac-devel is earlier than 0:1.1.2-28.el5_0.1 |
|comment||flac-devel is signed with Red Hat redhatrelease key |
|title||RHSA-2007:0975: flac security update (Important) |
|bugtraq||20071115 EEYE: Multiple Vulnerabilities In .FLAC File Format and Various Media Applications |
|Last major update
||15-10-2018 - 21:51
||07-12-2007 - 11:46
||15-10-2018 - 21:51