CVE-2007-3847

The date handling code in modules/proxy/proxy_util.c (mod_proxy) in Apache 2.3.0, when using a threaded MPM, allows remote origin servers to cause a denial of service (caching forward proxy process crash) via crafted date headers that trigger a buffer over-read.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Http_server	Apache	2.0.35 (including)	2.0.61 (excluding)
Http_server	Apache	2.2.0 (including)	2.2.6 (excluding)
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	ant-0:1.6.5-1jpp_1rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	avalon-logkit-0:1.2-2jpp_4rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	axis-0:1.2.1-1jpp_3rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	classpathx-jaf-0:1.0-2jpp_6rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	classpathx-mail-0:1.1.1-2jpp_8rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	geronimo-specs-0:1.0-0.M4.1jpp_10rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	jakarta-commons-modeler-0:2.0-3jpp_2rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	log4j-0:1.2.12-1jpp_1rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	mx4j-1:3.0.1-1jpp_4rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	pcsc-lite-0:1.3.3-3.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-ca-0:7.3.0-20.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-java-tools-0:7.3.0-10.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-kra-0:7.3.0-14.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-manage-0:7.3.0-19.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-native-tools-0:7.3.0-6.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-ocsp-0:7.3.0-13.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	rhpki-tks-0:7.3.0-13.el4	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	tomcat5-0:5.5.23-0jpp_4rh.16	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	xerces-j2-0:2.7.1-1jpp_1rh	*
Red Hat Certificate System 7.3	RedHat	xml-commons-0:1.3.02-2jpp_1rh	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3	RedHat	httpd-0:2.0.46-70.ent	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4	RedHat	httpd-0:2.0.52-38.ent	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5	RedHat	httpd-0:2.2.3-11.el5	*
Red Hat Web Application Stack for RHEL 4	RedHat	httpd-0:2.0.59-1.el4s1.8	*
Apache2	Ubuntu	dapper	*
Apache2	Ubuntu	edgy	*
Apache2	Ubuntu	feisty	*
Apache2	Ubuntu	gutsy	*

Potential Mitigations

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.
To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-3847
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2007-3847

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References