GHSA-X9XC-63HG-VCFQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-05 15:00 – Updated: 2025-04-01 22:59Impact
Code that attempts to use an item (e.g., a row) returned by an iterator after the iterator has advanced to the next item will be accessing freed memory and experience undefined behaviour. Code that uses the item and then advances the iterator is unaffected. This problem has always existed.
This is a use-after-free bug, so it's rated high severity. If your code uses a pre-3.0.0 version of cassandra-rs, and uses an item returned by a cassandra-rs iterator after calling next() on that iterator, then it is vulnerable. However, such code will almost always fail immediately - so we believe it is unlikely that any code using this pattern would have reached production. For peace of mind, we recommend you upgrade anyway.
Patches
The problem has been fixed in version 3.0.0. Users should upgrade to ensure their code cannot use the problematic pattern.
Workarounds
Ensure all usage fits the expected pattern. For example, use get_first_row() rather than an iterator, or completely process an item before advancing the iterator with next().
References
None.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "cassandra-cpp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-27284"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-416"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-05T15:00:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-29T01:44:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nCode that attempts to use an item (e.g., a row) returned by an iterator after the iterator has advanced to the next item will be accessing freed memory and experience undefined behaviour. Code that uses the item and then advances the iterator is unaffected. This problem has always existed.\n\nThis is a use-after-free bug, so it\u0027s rated high severity. If your code uses a pre-3.0.0 version of cassandra-rs, and uses an item returned by a cassandra-rs iterator after calling `next()` on that iterator, then it is vulnerable. However, such code will almost always fail immediately - so we believe it is unlikely that any code using this pattern would have reached production. For peace of mind, we recommend you upgrade anyway.\n\n### Patches\nThe problem has been fixed in version 3.0.0. Users should upgrade to ensure their code cannot use the problematic pattern.\n\n### Workarounds\nEnsure all usage fits the expected pattern. For example, use `get_first_row()` rather than an iterator, or completely process an item before advancing the iterator with `next()`.\n\n### References\nNone.",
"id": "GHSA-x9xc-63hg-vcfq",
"modified": "2025-04-01T22:59:42Z",
"published": "2024-04-05T15:00:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Metaswitch/cassandra-rs/security/advisories/GHSA-x9xc-63hg-vcfq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-27284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Metaswitch/cassandra-rs/commit/ae054dc8044eac9c2c7ae2b1ab154b53ca7f8df7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Metaswitch/cassandra-rs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0017.html"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "cassandra-rs\u0027s non-idiomatic use of iterators leads to use after free"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.