CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2008-3578

Improper Input Validation

Published: Aug 10, 2008 | Modified: Sep 29, 2017
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

HydraIRC 0.3.164 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and application crash) via a long irc:// URI.

Weakness

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.057 0.3.057
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.058 0.3.058
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.059 0.3.059
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.060 0.3.060
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.061 0.3.061
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.062 0.3.062
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.063 0.3.063
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.064 0.3.064
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.065 0.3.065
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.066 0.3.066
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.067 0.3.067
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.068 0.3.068
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.069 0.3.069
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.070 0.3.070
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.071 0.3.071
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.072 0.3.072
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.073 0.3.073
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.074 0.3.074
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.075 0.3.075
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.076 0.3.076
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.077 0.3.077
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.078 0.3.078
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.079 0.3.079
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.080 0.3.080
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.081 0.3.081
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.082 0.3.082
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.083 0.3.083
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.084 0.3.084
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.085 0.3.085
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.086 0.3.086
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.087 0.3.087
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.088 0.3.088
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.089 0.3.089
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.090 0.3.090
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.091 0.3.091
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.092 0.3.092
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.093 0.3.093
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.094 0.3.094
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.095 0.3.095
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.096 0.3.096
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.097 0.3.097
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.098 0.3.098
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.099 0.3.099
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.101 0.3.101
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.102 0.3.102
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.103 0.3.103
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.104 0.3.104
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.105 0.3.105
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.106 0.3.106
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.107 0.3.107
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.108 0.3.108
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.109 0.3.109
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.110 0.3.110
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.111 0.3.111
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.112 0.3.112
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.113 0.3.113
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.114 0.3.114
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.115 0.3.115
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.116 0.3.116
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.117 0.3.117
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.118 0.3.118
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.119 0.3.119
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.120 0.3.120
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.121 0.3.121
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.122 0.3.122
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.123 0.3.123
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.124 0.3.124
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.125 0.3.125
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.126 0.3.126
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.127 0.3.127
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.128 0.3.128
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.129 0.3.129
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.130 0.3.130
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.131 0.3.131
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.132 0.3.132
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.133 0.3.133
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.134 0.3.134
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.135 0.3.135
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.136 0.3.136
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.137 0.3.137
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.138 0.3.138
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.139 0.3.139
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.140 0.3.140
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.141 0.3.141
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.142 0.3.142
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.143 0.3.143
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.144 0.3.144
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.145 0.3.145
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.146 0.3.146
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.147 0.3.147
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.148 0.3.148
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.149 0.3.149
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.150 0.3.150
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.151 0.3.151
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.152 0.3.152
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.153 0.3.153
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.154 0.3.154
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.155 0.3.155
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.156 0.3.156
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.157 0.3.157
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.158 0.3.158
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.159 0.3.159
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.160 0.3.160
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.161 0.3.161
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.162 0.3.162
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.3.163 0.3.163
Hydrairc Hydrairc * 0.3.164
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.23 0.23
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.24 0.24
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.25 0.25
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.300 0.300
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.301 0.301
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.302 0.302
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.303 0.303
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.304 0.304
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.305 0.305
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.306 0.306
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.307 0.307
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.308 0.308
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.309 0.309
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.310 0.310
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.311 0.311
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.312 0.312
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.313 0.313
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.314 0.314
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.315 0.315
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.316 0.316
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.317 0.317
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.318 0.318
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.319 0.319
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.320 0.320
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.321 0.321
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.322 0.322
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.323 0.323
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.324 0.324
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.325 0.325
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.326 0.326
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.327 0.327
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.328 0.328
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.329 0.329
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.330 0.330
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.331 0.331
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.332 0.332
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.333 0.333
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.334 0.334
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.335 0.335
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.336 0.336
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.337 0.337
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.338 0.338
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.339 0.339
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.340 0.340
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.341 0.341
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.342 0.342
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.343 0.343
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.344 0.344
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.345 0.345
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.346 0.346
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.347 0.347
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.348 0.348
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.349 0.349
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.350 0.350
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.351 0.351
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.352 0.352
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.353 0.353
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.354 0.354
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.355 0.355
Hydrairc Hydrairc 0.356 0.356

Extended Description

Input validation is a frequently-used technique for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the code, or when communicating with other components. When software does not validate input properly, an attacker is able to craft the input in a form that is not expected by the rest of the application. This will lead to parts of the system receiving unintended input, which may result in altered control flow, arbitrary control of a resource, or arbitrary code execution. Input validation is not the only technique for processing input, however. Other techniques attempt to transform potentially-dangerous input into something safe, such as filtering (CWE-790) - which attempts to remove dangerous inputs - or encoding/escaping (CWE-116), which attempts to ensure that the input is not misinterpreted when it is included in output to another component. Other techniques exist as well (see CWE-138 for more examples.) Input validation can be applied to:

Data can be simple or structured. Structured data can be composed of many nested layers, composed of combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or structured data. Many properties of raw data or metadata may need to be validated upon entry into the code, such as:

Implied or derived properties of data must often be calculated or inferred by the code itself. Errors in deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor to improper input validation.

Note that “input validation” has very different meanings to different people, or within different classification schemes. Caution must be used when referencing this CWE entry or mapping to it. For example, some weaknesses might involve inadvertently giving control to an attacker over an input when they should not be able to provide an input at all, but sometimes this is referred to as input validation. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the distinctions between input validation and output escaping are often blurred, and developers must be careful to understand the difference, including how input validation is not always sufficient to prevent vulnerabilities, especially when less stringent data types must be supported, such as free-form text. Consider a SQL injection scenario in which a person’s last name is inserted into a query. The name “O’Reilly” would likely pass the validation step since it is a common last name in the English language. However, this valid name cannot be directly inserted into the database because it contains the “'” apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise transformed. In this case, removing the apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name would be recorded.

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.
  • For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
  • Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.

References