CWE-120
Allowed-with-ReviewBuffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
5452 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-2PXC-8FHW-2CW4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-09 00:33 – Updated: 2023-11-09 00:33A buffer overflow was reported in the FmpSipoCapsuleDriver driver in the IdeaPad Duet 3-10IGL5 that may allow a local attacker with elevated privileges to execute arbitrary code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-5075"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-08T22:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A buffer overflow was reported in the FmpSipoCapsuleDriver driver in the IdeaPad Duet 3-10IGL5 that may allow a local attacker with elevated privileges to execute arbitrary code.",
"id": "GHSA-2pxc-8fhw-2cw4",
"modified": "2023-11-09T00:33:56Z",
"published": "2023-11-09T00:33:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-5075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/LEN-141775"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2PXG-GFXF-6253
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-12 00:00 – Updated: 2022-02-19 00:01An improper boundary check in RPMB ldfw prior to SMR Feb-2022 Release 1 allows arbitrary memory write and code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23431"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-11T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An improper boundary check in RPMB ldfw prior to SMR Feb-2022 Release 1 allows arbitrary memory write and code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-2pxg-gfxf-6253",
"modified": "2022-02-19T00:01:46Z",
"published": "2022-02-12T00:00:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23431"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/securityUpdate.smsb?year=2022\u0026month=2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-2Q62-C428-JCWC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:04 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:04Buffer overflow in the BMC firmware for Intel(R) Server BoardM10JNP2SB before version EFI BIOS 7215, BMC 8100.01.08 may allow an unauthenticated user to potentially enable an escalation of privilege via adjacent access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-0101"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-09T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Buffer overflow in the BMC firmware for Intel(R) Server BoardM10JNP2SB before version EFI BIOS 7215, BMC 8100.01.08 may allow an unauthenticated user to potentially enable an escalation of privilege via adjacent access.",
"id": "GHSA-2q62-c428-jcwc",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:04:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:04:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-0101"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00474.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-2Q8V-3GQQ-4F8P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-19 16:19 – Updated: 2024-10-10 14:46### Summary
concat built-in can write over the bounds of the memory buffer that was allocated for it and thus overwrite existing valid data. The root cause is that the build_IR for concat doesn't properly adhere to the API of copy functions (for >=0.3.2 the copy_bytes function).
A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.
Tracked in issue https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/issues/3737
Details
The build_IR allocates a new internal variable for the concatenation: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L534-L550
Notice that the buffer is allocated for the maxlen + 1 word to actually hold the length of the array.
Later the copy_bytes function is used to copy the actual source arguments to the destination: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L569-L572
The dst_data is defined via:
- data ptr - to skip the 1 word that holds the length
- offset - to skip the source arguments that were already written to the buffer
- the offset is increased via: ["set", ofst, ["add", ofst, arglen]], ie it is increased by the length of the source argument
Now, the copy_bytes function has multiple control flow paths, the following ones are of interest:
1) https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L270-L273
2) https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L301-L320
Note that the function itself contains the following note: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L245-L247
That is we can ask for a copy of 1B yet a whole word is copied.
Consider the first interesting path - if the dst_data's distance to the end of the concat data buffer is < 32B, the copy_op = STORE(dst, LOAD(src)) from copy_bytes will result in buffer overflow as it essentially will mstore to dst_data the mload of the source (mload will load whole word and the distance of the dst_data to the word boundary is <32B).
From the two mentioned paths in copy_bytes it can be seen that both sources from memory and storage can cause the corruption.
PoC
The main attack vector that was found was when the concat is inside an internal function. Suppose we have an external function that calls internal one. In such case the address space is divided such that the memory for the internal function is in lower portion of the adr space. As such the buffer overflow can overwrite valid data of the caller.
Here is a simple example:
#@version ^0.3.9
@internal
def bar() -> uint256:
sss: String[2] = concat("a", "b")
return 1
@external
def foo() -> int256:
a: int256 = -1
b: uint256 = self.bar()
return a
foo should clearly return -1, but it returns 452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655
-1 was used intentionally due to its bit structure but the value here is fairly irelevant. In this example during the second iteration of the for loop in the build_IR mload to dst+1 will be executed (because len('a') == 1), thus the function will write 1B over the bounds of the buffer. The string 'b' is stored such that its right-most byte is a zero byte. So a zero byte will be written over the bounds. So when -1 is considered it's left-most B will be overwritten to all 0. Therefore it can be seen: 452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655 == (2**248-1) will output True.
IR
If we look at the contract's IR (vyper --no optimize -f ir), we see:
# Line 30
/* a: int256 = -1 */ [mstore, 320, -1 <-1>],
And for the second iteration of the loop in concat:
len,
[mload, arg],
[seq,
[with,
src,
[add, arg, 32],
[with,
dst,
[add, [add, 256 <concat destination>, 32], concat_ofst],
[mstore, dst, [mload, src]]]],
[set, concat_ofst, [add, concat_ofst, len]]]]],
[mstore, 256 <concat destination>, concat_ofst],
256 <concat destination>]],
So the address of the int is 320.
The dst is defined as: [add, [add, 256 <concat destination>, 32], concat_ofst],.
In the second iteration the concat_ofst will be 1 because len('a)==1 so 256+32+1 = 289. Now this address will be mstored to - so the last mstored B will have the address 289+32=320 which clearly overlaps with the address of the int a.
PoC 2
Due to how immutables are handled, they can be corrupted too:
#@version ^0.3.9
i: immutable(int256)
@external
def __init__():
i = -1
s: String[2] = concat("a", "b")
@external
def foo() -> int256:
return i
Output of calling foo() = 452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655.
Impact
The buffer overflow can result in the change of semantics of the contract. The overflow is length-dependent and thus it might go unnoticed during contract testing.
However, certainly not all usages of concat will result in overwritten valid data as we require it to be in an internal function and close to the return statement where other memory allocations don't occur.
Concluding remarks
The bug based on the fast path in copy_bytes was likely introduced in: 548d35d720fb6fd8efbdc0ce525bed259a73f0b9. git bisect was used between v0.3.1 and v0.3.2, forge test was run and the test asserted that the function indeed returns -1.
For the general case, 0.3.0 and 0.3.1 are also affected.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.3.10"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vyper"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-22419"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120",
"CWE-787"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-19T16:19:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-18T19:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": " ### Summary\n`concat` built-in can write over the bounds of the memory buffer that was allocated for it and thus overwrite existing valid data. The root cause is that the `build_IR` for `concat` doesn\u0027t properly adhere to the API of copy functions (for `\u003e=0.3.2` the `copy_bytes` function).\n\nA contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.\n\nTracked in issue https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/issues/3737\n\n### Details\nThe `build_IR` allocates a new internal variable for the concatenation: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L534-L550\n\nNotice that the buffer is allocated for the `maxlen` + 1 word to actually hold the length of the array.\n\nLater the `copy_bytes` function is used to copy the actual source arguments to the destination: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L569-L572\n\nThe `dst_data` is defined via:\n- `data ptr` - to skip the 1 word that holds the length\n- `offset` - to skip the source arguments that were already written to the buffer\n - the `offset` is increased via: `[\"set\", ofst, [\"add\", ofst, arglen]]`, ie it is increased by the length of the source argument\n\nNow, the `copy_bytes` function has multiple control flow paths, the following ones are of interest:\n1) https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L270-L273\n2) https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L301-L320\n\nNote that the function itself contains the following note: \nhttps://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/3b310d5292c4d1448e673d7b3adb223f9353260e/vyper/codegen/core.py#L245-L247\n\nThat is we can ask for a copy of `1B` yet a whole word is copied.\n\nConsider the first interesting path - if the `dst_data`\u0027s distance to the end of the concat data buffer is `\u003c 32B`, the `copy_op = STORE(dst, LOAD(src))` from `copy_bytes` will result in buffer overflow as it essentially will `mstore` to `dst_data` the `mload` of the source (mload will load whole word and the distance of the `dst_data` to the word boundary is `\u003c32B`).\n\nFrom the two mentioned paths in `copy_bytes` it can be seen that both sources from memory and storage can cause the corruption.\n\n### PoC\nThe main attack vector that was found was when the `concat` is inside an `internal` function. Suppose we have an `external` function that calls `internal` one. In such case the address space is divided such that the memory for the internal function is in _lower_ portion of the adr space. As such the buffer overflow can overwrite _valid_ data of the caller.\n\nHere is a simple example:\n```python\n#@version ^0.3.9\n\n@internal\ndef bar() -\u003e uint256:\n sss: String[2] = concat(\"a\", \"b\") \n return 1\n\n\n@external\ndef foo() -\u003e int256:\n a: int256 = -1\n b: uint256 = self.bar()\n return a \n```\n\n`foo` should clearly return `-1`, but it returns `452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655`\n\n`-1` was used intentionally due to its bit structure but the value here is fairly irelevant. In this example during the second iteration of the for loop in the `build_IR` `mload` to `dst+1` will be executed (because len(\u0027a\u0027) == 1), thus the function will write `1B` over the bounds of the buffer. The string \u0027b\u0027 is stored such that its right-most byte is a zero byte. So a zero byte will be written over the bounds. So when `-1` is considered it\u0027s left-most B will be overwritten to all 0. Therefore it can be seen: `452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655 == (2**248-1)` will output `True`.\n\n#### IR\nIf we look at the contract\u0027s IR (vyper --no optimize -f ir), we see:\n```\n# Line 30\n /* a: int256 = -1 */ [mstore, 320, -1 \u003c-1\u003e],\n```\nAnd for the second iteration of the loop in concat:\n```\n len,\n [mload, arg],\n [seq,\n [with,\n src,\n [add, arg, 32],\n [with,\n dst,\n [add, [add, 256 \u003cconcat destination\u003e, 32], concat_ofst],\n [mstore, dst, [mload, src]]]],\n [set, concat_ofst, [add, concat_ofst, len]]]]],\n [mstore, 256 \u003cconcat destination\u003e, concat_ofst],\n 256 \u003cconcat destination\u003e]],\n```\nSo the address of the `int` is 320. \n\nThe `dst` is defined as: `[add, [add, 256 \u003cconcat destination\u003e, 32], concat_ofst],`.\nIn the second iteration the `concat_ofst` will be 1 because `len(\u0027a)==1` so `256+32+1 = 289`. Now this address will be `mstored` to - so the last mstored B will have the address `289+32=320` which clearly overlaps with the address of the `int a`.\n\n#### PoC 2\nDue to how `immutables` are handled, they can be corrupted too:\n```python\n#@version ^0.3.9\n\ni: immutable(int256)\n\n@external\ndef __init__():\n i = -1\n s: String[2] = concat(\"a\", \"b\")\n\n@external\ndef foo() -\u003e int256:\n return i\n```\n\nOutput of calling `foo()` = `452312848583266388373324160190187140051835877600158453279131187530910662655`.\n\n### Impact\nThe buffer overflow can result in the change of semantics of the contract. The overflow is length-dependent and thus it might go unnoticed during contract testing.\n\nHowever, certainly not all usages of `concat` will result in overwritten valid data as we require it to be in an `internal` function and close to the `return` statement where other memory allocations don\u0027t occur. \n\n### Concluding remarks\nThe bug based on the fast path in `copy_bytes` was likely introduced in: `548d35d720fb6fd8efbdc0ce525bed259a73f0b9`. `git bisect` was used between v0.3.1 and v0.3.2, `forge test` was run and the test asserted that the function indeed returns -1.\n\nFor the general case, `0.3.0` and `0.3.1` are also affected.",
"id": "GHSA-2q8v-3gqq-4f8p",
"modified": "2024-10-10T14:46:31Z",
"published": "2024-01-19T16:19:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-2q8v-3gqq-4f8p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-22419"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/issues/3737"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/55e18f6d128b2da8986adbbcccf1cd59a4b9ad6f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2024-103.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "concat built-in can corrupt memory in vyper"
}
GHSA-2Q94-WPRW-25W4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 06:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 15:31Object corruption in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 146.0.7680.178 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside a sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-5279"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-01T05:16:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Object corruption in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 146.0.7680.178 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside a sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)",
"id": "GHSA-2q94-wprw-25w4",
"modified": "2026-04-01T15:31:14Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T06:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5279"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/03/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_31.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/490642836"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2QG7-WWHV-WP5V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-17 12:31 – Updated: 2025-05-17 12:31A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in TOTOLINK A702R, A3002R and A3002RU 3.0.0-B20230809.1615. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /boafrm/formWirelessTbl of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4826"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-119",
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-17T11:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in TOTOLINK A702R, A3002R and A3002RU 3.0.0-B20230809.1615. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /boafrm/formWirelessTbl of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-2qg7-wwhv-wp5v",
"modified": "2025-05-17T12:31:08Z",
"published": "2025-05-17T12:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4826"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/CH13hh/tmp_store_cc/blob/main/toto/5.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.309287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.309287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.574597"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.totolink.net"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-2QJ2-RQ28-64CC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-18 15:30 – Updated: 2024-09-24 18:31Draytek Vigor 3910 v4.3.2.6 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow in the sAct parameter at v2x00.cgi. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46596"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-18T15:15:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Draytek Vigor 3910 v4.3.2.6 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow in the sAct parameter at v2x00.cgi. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input.",
"id": "GHSA-2qj2-rq28-64cc",
"modified": "2024-09-24T18:31:27Z",
"published": "2024-09-18T15:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46596"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ink-desk-28f.notion.site/Draytek-vigor-3910-Analysis-Report-b3b23e150c4f4bab822c3c47fd7b9de9#d049794ac4804e48968cb77589d5ec45"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2QPP-9V9C-5979
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-23 09:30 – Updated: 2025-07-23 09:30A vulnerability has been found in Dahua products.
Attackers could exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability by sending specially crafted malicious packets, potentially causing service disruption (e.g., crashes) or remote code execution (RCE). Some devices may have deployed protection mechanisms such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), which reduces the likelihood of successful RCE exploitation. However, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks remain a concern.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-31701"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-23T07:15:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in Dahua products.\n\nAttackers could exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability by sending specially crafted malicious packets, potentially causing service disruption (e.g., crashes) or remote code execution (RCE). Some devices may have deployed protection mechanisms such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), which reduces the likelihood of successful RCE exploitation. However, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks remain a concern.",
"id": "GHSA-2qpp-9v9c-5979",
"modified": "2025-07-23T09:30:34Z",
"published": "2025-07-23T09:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dahuasecurity.com/aboutUs/trustedCenter/details/775"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2QQQ-GMVR-P2RW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-03 21:31 – Updated: 2024-09-04 00:31YugabyteDB v2.21.1.0 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow via the "insert into" parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41435"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-03T19:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "YugabyteDB v2.21.1.0 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow via the \"insert into\" parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-2qqq-gmvr-p2rw",
"modified": "2024-09-04T00:31:14Z",
"published": "2024-09-03T21:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yugabyte/yugabyte-db/issues/22967"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/ycybfhb/1427881e7db911786837d32b0669e06b"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2QR5-C6CH-9WR8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-21 00:01 – Updated: 2022-06-02 00:00A vulnerability has been identified in OpenV2G (V0.9.4). The OpenV2G EXI parsing feature is missing a length check when parsing X509 serial numbers. Thus, an attacker could introduce a buffer overflow that leads to memory corruption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-27242"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-20T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in OpenV2G (V0.9.4). The OpenV2G EXI parsing feature is missing a length check when parsing X509 serial numbers. Thus, an attacker could introduce a buffer overflow that leads to memory corruption.",
"id": "GHSA-2qr5-c6ch-9wr8",
"modified": "2022-06-02T00:00:33Z",
"published": "2022-05-21T00:01:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-27242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-736385.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-3
Strategy: Language Selection
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.
- Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
Mitigation MIT-4.1
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
Mitigation MIT-10
Strategy: Environment Hardening
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.
- D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Mitigation MIT-9
- Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory:
- Double check that your buffer is as large as you specify.
- When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string.
- Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space.
- If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-11
Strategy: Environment Hardening
- Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.
- Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.
- For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
Mitigation MIT-12
Strategy: Environment Hardening
- Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.
- For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
Mitigation
Most mitigating technologies at the compiler or OS level to date address only a subset of buffer overflow problems and rarely provide complete protection against even that subset. It is good practice to implement strategies to increase the workload of an attacker, such as leaving the attacker to guess an unknown value that changes every program execution.
Mitigation MIT-13
Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
CAPEC-10: Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary 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.
CAPEC-100: Overflow Buffers
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.
CAPEC-14: 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. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
CAPEC-24: 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).
CAPEC-42: MIME Conversion
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.
CAPEC-44: 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 adversary access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary 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.
CAPEC-46: 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 adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
CAPEC-47: Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary 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.
CAPEC-67: String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
CAPEC-8: Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. 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.
CAPEC-9: Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
CAPEC-92: Forced Integer Overflow
This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.