CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2008-2363

Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Published: Jun 02, 2008 | Modified: Aug 08, 2017
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
9.3 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

The PartsBatch class in Pan 0.132 and earlier does not properly manage the data structures for Parts batches, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted .nzb file that triggers a heap-based buffer overflow.

Weakness

The software performs operations on a memory buffer, but it can read from or write to a memory location that is outside of the intended boundary of the buffer.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Pan Pan 0.105 0.105
Pan Pan 0.106 0.106
Pan Pan 0.107 0.107
Pan Pan 0.108 0.108
Pan Pan 0.109 0.109
Pan Pan 0.110 0.110
Pan Pan 0.111 0.111
Pan Pan 0.112 0.112
Pan Pan 0.113 0.113
Pan Pan 0.114 0.114
Pan Pan 0.115 0.115
Pan Pan 0.116 0.116
Pan Pan 0.117 0.117
Pan Pan 0.118 0.118
Pan Pan 0.119 0.119
Pan Pan 0.120 0.120
Pan Pan 0.121 0.121
Pan Pan 0.122 0.122
Pan Pan 0.123 0.123
Pan Pan 0.124 0.124
Pan Pan 0.125 0.125
Pan Pan 0.126 0.126
Pan Pan 0.127 0.127
Pan Pan 0.128 0.128
Pan Pan 0.129 0.129
Pan Pan 0.130 0.130
Pan Pan 0.131 0.131
Pan Pan * 0.132
Pan Ubuntu dapper *
Pan Ubuntu feisty *
Pan Ubuntu gutsy *
Pan Ubuntu hardy *
Pan Ubuntu upstream *

Extended Description

Certain languages allow direct addressing of memory locations and do not automatically ensure that these locations are valid for the memory buffer that is being referenced. This can cause read or write operations to be performed on memory locations that may be associated with other variables, data structures, or internal program data. As a result, an attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code, alter the intended control flow, read sensitive information, or cause the system to crash.

Potential Mitigations

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Run or compile the software using features or extensions that automatically provide a protection mechanism that mitigates or eliminates buffer overflows.

  • For example, certain compilers and extensions provide automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are built into the compiled code. Examples include the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice.

  • Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

  • 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].

References