CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-2837

Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Published: Aug 05, 2016 | Modified: Dec 27, 2019
CVSS 3.x
6.3
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
5.1 LOW
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V3
5.6 LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Ubuntu

Heap-based buffer overflow in the ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) in the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) API in Mozilla Firefox before 48.0 and Firefox ESR 45.x before 45.3 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by providing a malformed video and leveraging a Gecko Media Plugin (GMP) sandbox bypass.

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
Firefox Mozilla * 47.0.1
Firefox_esr Mozilla 45.1.0 45.1.0
Firefox_esr Mozilla 45.1.1 45.1.1
Firefox_esr Mozilla 45.2.0 45.2.0
Firefox_esr Mozilla 45.3.0 45.3.0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 RedHat firefox-0:45.3.0-1.el5_11 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat firefox-0:45.3.0-1.el6_8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat firefox-0:45.3.0-1.el7_2 *
Firefox Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Firefox Ubuntu precise *
Firefox Ubuntu trusty *
Firefox Ubuntu upstream *
Firefox Ubuntu xenial *

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