Installing a zero-permission Android application on certain Samsung Android devices with KK(4.4), L(5.0/5.1), and M(6.0) software can continually crash the system_server process in the Android OS. The zero-permission app will create an active install session for a separate app that it has embedded within it. The active install session of the embedded app is performed using the android.content.pm.PackageInstaller class and its nested classes in the Android API. The active install session will write the embedded APK file to the /data/app directory, but the app will not be installed since third-party applications cannot programmatically install apps. Samsung has modified AOSP in order to accelerate the parsing of APKs by introducing the com.android.server.pm.PackagePrefetcher class and its nested classes. These classes will parse the APKs present in the /data/app directory and other directories, even if the app is not actually installed. The embedded APK that was written to the /data/app directory via the active install session has a very large but valid AndroidManifest.xml file. Specifically, the AndroidManifest.xml file contains a very large string value for the name of a permission-tree that it declares. When system_server tries to parse the APK file of the embedded app from the active install session, it will crash due to an uncaught error (i.e., java.lang.OutOfMemoryError) or an uncaught exception (i.e., std::bad_alloc) because of memory constraints. The Samsung Android device will encounter a soft reboot due to a system_server crash, and this action will keep repeating since parsing the APKs in the /data/app directory as performed by the system_server process is part of the normal boot process. The Samsung ID is SVE-2016-6917.
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samsung_mobile | Samsung | 4.4 (including) | 4.4 (including) |
| Samsung_mobile | Samsung | 5.0 (including) | 5.0 (including) |
| Samsung_mobile | Samsung | 5.1 (including) | 5.1 (including) |
| Samsung_mobile | Samsung | 6.0 (including) | 6.0 (including) |
Input validation is a frequently-used technique for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the code, or when communicating with other components. When software does not validate input properly, an attacker is able to craft the input in a form that is not expected by the rest of the application. This will lead to parts of the system receiving unintended input, which may result in altered control flow, arbitrary control of a resource, or arbitrary code execution. Input validation is not the only technique for processing input, however. Other techniques attempt to transform potentially-dangerous input into something safe, such as filtering (CWE-790) - which attempts to remove dangerous inputs - or encoding/escaping (CWE-116), which attempts to ensure that the input is not misinterpreted when it is included in output to another component. Other techniques exist as well (see CWE-138 for more examples.) Input validation can be applied to:
Data can be simple or structured. Structured data can be composed of many nested layers, composed of combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or structured data. Many properties of raw data or metadata may need to be validated upon entry into the code, such as:
Implied or derived properties of data must often be calculated or inferred by the code itself. Errors in deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor to improper input validation.
Note that “input validation” has very different meanings to different people, or within different classification schemes. Caution must be used when referencing this CWE entry or mapping to it. For example, some weaknesses might involve inadvertently giving control to an attacker over an input when they should not be able to provide an input at all, but sometimes this is referred to as input validation. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the distinctions between input validation and output escaping are often blurred, and developers must be careful to understand the difference, including how input validation is not always sufficient to prevent vulnerabilities, especially when less stringent data types must be supported, such as free-form text. Consider a SQL injection scenario in which a person’s last name is inserted into a query. The name “O’Reilly” would likely pass the validation step since it is a common last name in the English language. However, this valid name cannot be directly inserted into the database because it contains the “’” apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise transformed. In this case, removing the apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name would be recorded.