Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-2180

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Aug 01, 2016 | Modified: Dec 13, 2022
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
1.9 LOW
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V3
5.1 LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
LOW
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-2180
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

The TS_OBJ_print_bio function in crypto/ts/ts_lib.c in the X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) implementation in OpenSSL through 1.0.2h allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and application crash) via a crafted time-stamp file that is mishandled by the openssl ts command.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1 (including) 1.0.1 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1a (including) 1.0.1a (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1b (including) 1.0.1b (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1c (including) 1.0.1c (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1d (including) 1.0.1d (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1e (including) 1.0.1e (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1f (including) 1.0.1f (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1g (including) 1.0.1g (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1h (including) 1.0.1h (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1i (including) 1.0.1i (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1j (including) 1.0.1j (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1k (including) 1.0.1k (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1l (including) 1.0.1l (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1m (including) 1.0.1m (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1n (including) 1.0.1n (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1o (including) 1.0.1o (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1p (including) 1.0.1p (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1q (including) 1.0.1q (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1r (including) 1.0.1r (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1s (including) 1.0.1s (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1t (including) 1.0.1t (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2 (including) 1.0.2 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2a (including) 1.0.2a (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2b (including) 1.0.2b (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2c (including) 1.0.2c (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2d (including) 1.0.2d (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2e (including) 1.0.2e (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2f (including) 1.0.2f (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2g (including) 1.0.2g (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.2h (including) 1.0.2h (including)
Openssl Ubuntu artful *
Openssl Ubuntu bionic *
Openssl Ubuntu cosmic *
Openssl Ubuntu devel *
Openssl Ubuntu disco *
Openssl Ubuntu precise *
Openssl Ubuntu trusty *
Openssl Ubuntu upstream *
Openssl Ubuntu vivid/stable-phone-overlay *
Openssl Ubuntu vivid/ubuntu-core *
Openssl Ubuntu wily *
Openssl Ubuntu xenial *
Openssl Ubuntu yakkety *
Openssl Ubuntu zesty *
Openssl098 Ubuntu precise *
Openssl098 Ubuntu trusty *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat openssl-0:1.0.1e-48.el6_8.3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat openssl-1:1.0.1e-51.el7_2.7 *

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.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

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