Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2008-2374

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

Published: Jul 07, 2008 | Modified: Feb 13, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
LOW
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-2374
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1284.html

src/sdp.c in bluez-libs 3.30 in BlueZ, and other bluez-libs before 3.34 and bluez-utils before 3.34 versions, does not validate string length fields in SDP packets, which allows remote SDP servers to cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted length field that triggers excessive memory allocation or a buffer over-read.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Bluez-libs Bluez * 3.34 (excluding)
Bluez-utils Bluez * 3.34 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 RedHat bluez-libs-0:2.10-3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 RedHat bluez-utils-0:2.10-2.4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 RedHat bluez-libs-0:3.7-1.1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 RedHat bluez-utils-0:3.7-2.2 *
Bluez-libs Ubuntu dapper *
Bluez-libs Ubuntu feisty *
Bluez-libs Ubuntu gutsy *
Bluez-libs Ubuntu hardy *
Bluez-libs Ubuntu upstream *
Bluez-utils Ubuntu dapper *
Bluez-utils Ubuntu feisty *
Bluez-utils Ubuntu gutsy *
Bluez-utils Ubuntu hardy *
Bluez-utils Ubuntu upstream *

Extended Description

Specified quantities include size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, and others. Code may rely on specified quantities to allocate resources, perform calculations, control iteration, etc. When the quantity is not properly validated, then attackers can specify malicious quantities to cause excessive resource allocation, trigger unexpected failures, enable buffer overflows, etc.

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.

References

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2024 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use