ghsa-4qpc-hphm-xpmc
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-03-09 00:00
Modified
2022-03-17 00:02
Severity ?
Details

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 devices (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG900 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions < V5.6.0). Within a third-party component, whenever memory allocation is requested, the out of bound size is not checked. Therefore, if size exceeding the expected allocation is assigned, it could allocate a smaller buffer instead. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could cause a heap overflow.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-42018"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-122",
      "CWE-787"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-03-08T12:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 devices (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG900 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions \u003c V5.6.0). Within a third-party component, whenever memory allocation is requested, the out of bound size is not checked. Therefore, if size exceeding the expected allocation is assigned, it could allocate a smaller buffer instead. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could cause a heap overflow.",
  "id": "GHSA-4qpc-hphm-xpmc",
  "modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:49Z",
  "published": "2022-03-09T00:00:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42018"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-256353.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.