CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-9555

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Nov 28, 2016 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
10 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
7.1 MODERATE
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V3
5.9 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

The sctp_sf_ootb function in net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c in the Linux kernel before 4.8.8 lacks chunk-length checking for the first chunk, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds slab access) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted SCTP data.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Linux_kernel Linux 3.2 (including) 3.2.85 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 3.3 (including) 3.10.105 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 3.11 (including) 3.12.68 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 3.13 (including) 3.16.40 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 3.17 (including) 3.18.49 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 3.19 (including) 4.4.32 (excluding)
Linux_kernel Linux 4.5.0 (including) 4.8.8 (excluding)
Linux Ubuntu precise *
Linux Ubuntu trusty *
Linux Ubuntu upstream *
Linux Ubuntu vivid/ubuntu-core *
Linux Ubuntu xenial *
Linux Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-armadaxp Ubuntu precise *
Linux-armadaxp Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-aws Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-flo Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-flo Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-flo Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-flo Ubuntu vivid/stable-phone-overlay *
Linux-flo Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-flo Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-gke Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu zesty *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe-edge Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-linaro-omap Ubuntu precise *
Linux-linaro-omap Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-linaro-shared Ubuntu precise *
Linux-linaro-shared Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-linaro-vexpress Ubuntu precise *
Linux-linaro-vexpress Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu precise *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu precise/esm *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu precise *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu precise/esm *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-saucy Ubuntu precise *
Linux-lts-saucy Ubuntu precise/esm *
Linux-lts-saucy Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-trusty Ubuntu precise *
Linux-lts-trusty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mako Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-mako Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-mako Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mako Ubuntu vivid/stable-phone-overlay *
Linux-mako Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-mako Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-manta Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-manta Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-qcm-msm Ubuntu precise *
Linux-qcm-msm Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu vivid/ubuntu-core *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu yakkety *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu precise *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu upstream *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat kernel-0:2.6.32-642.15.1.el6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat kernel-rt-0:3.10.0-514.6.1.rt56.429.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat kernel-0:3.10.0-514.6.1.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise MRG 2 RedHat kernel-rt-1:3.10.0-514.rt56.210.el6rt *

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