CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-11654

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jul 26, 2017 | Modified: Oct 06, 2022
CVSS 3.x
5.9
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
4.3 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

An out-of-bounds read and write flaw was found in the way SIPcrack 0.2 processed SIP traffic, because 0x00 termination of a payload array was mishandled. A remote attacker could potentially use this flaw to crash the sipdump process by generating specially crafted SIP traffic.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Sipcrack Sipcrack_project 0.2 (including) 0.2 (including)
Sipcrack Ubuntu artful *
Sipcrack Ubuntu bionic *
Sipcrack Ubuntu cosmic *
Sipcrack Ubuntu devel *
Sipcrack Ubuntu disco *
Sipcrack Ubuntu eoan *
Sipcrack Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Sipcrack Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Sipcrack Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Sipcrack Ubuntu esm-apps/noble *
Sipcrack Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Sipcrack Ubuntu focal *
Sipcrack Ubuntu groovy *
Sipcrack Ubuntu hirsute *
Sipcrack Ubuntu impish *
Sipcrack Ubuntu jammy *
Sipcrack Ubuntu kinetic *
Sipcrack Ubuntu lunar *
Sipcrack Ubuntu mantic *
Sipcrack Ubuntu noble *
Sipcrack Ubuntu oracular *
Sipcrack Ubuntu trusty *
Sipcrack Ubuntu upstream *
Sipcrack Ubuntu xenial *
Sipcrack Ubuntu zesty *

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