CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2011-4330

Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Published: Jan 27, 2012 | Modified: Apr 16, 2012
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
7.2 HIGH
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
6.2 MODERATE
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Stack-based buffer overflow in the hfs_mac2asc function in fs/hfs/trans.c in the Linux kernel 2.6 allows local users to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via an HFS image with a crafted len field.

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
Linux_kernel Linux 2.6 2.6
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 RedHat kernel-0:2.6.18-274.17.1.el5 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 EUS - Server Only RedHat kernel-0:2.6.18-238.35.1.el5 *
Linux Ubuntu hardy *
Linux Ubuntu lucid *
Linux Ubuntu maverick *
Linux Ubuntu natty *
Linux Ubuntu oneiric *
Linux Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-armadaxp Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-aws Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-flo Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-gke Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu saucy *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu saucy *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu utopic *
Linux-hwe Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe-edge Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-maverick Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-lts-backport-maverick Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-natty Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-lts-backport-natty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-oneiric Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-lts-backport-oneiric Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-saucy Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-trusty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu saucy *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mako Ubuntu saucy *
Linux-mako Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-manta Ubuntu saucy *
Linux-manta Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu vivid/ubuntu-core *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu natty *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu oneiric *
Linux-ti-omap4 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