CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2010-4069

Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Published: Oct 25, 2010 | Modified: Oct 27, 2010
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
8.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Stack-based buffer overflow in IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) 7.x through 7.31, 9.x through 9.40, 10.00 before 10.00.xC10, 11.10 before 11.10.xC3, and 11.50 before 11.50.xC3 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code via long DBINFO keyword arguments in a SQL statement, aka idsdb00165017, idsdb00165019, idsdb00165021, idsdb00165022, and idsdb00165023.

Weakness

The product 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
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.uc3 9.40.uc3
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.50.xc1 11.50.xc1
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.uc2 9.40.uc2
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.xc7 9.40.xc7
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.50 11.50
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.tc5 9.40.tc5
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10 11.10
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.xc5 9.40.xc5
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.uc1 9.40.uc1
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc3 10.00.xc3
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc9 10.00.xc9
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc6 10.00.xc6
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc1 10.00.xc1
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc4 10.00.xc4
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10.xc1 11.10.xc1
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc10 10.00.xc10
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.tc3tl 10.00.tc3tl
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00 10.00
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10.xc2e 11.10.xc2e
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc7w1 10.00.xc7w1
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10.xc1de 11.10.xc1de
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10.tb4tl 11.10.tb4tl
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc2 10.00.xc2
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc8 10.00.xc8
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 10.00.xc5 10.00.xc5
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.10.xc2 11.10.xc2
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 7.31 7.31
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 9.40.uc5 9.40.uc5
Informix_dynamic_server Ibm 11.50.xc2 11.50.xc2

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.

  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

  • D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

  • 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]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

  • Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References