CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-9224

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: May 24, 2017 | Modified: Jul 20, 2022
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
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
4.8 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

An issue was discovered in Oniguruma 6.2.0, as used in Oniguruma-mod in Ruby through 2.4.1 and mbstring in PHP through 7.1.5. A stack out-of-bounds read occurs in match_at() during regular expression searching. A logical error involving order of validation and access in match_at() could result in an out-of-bounds read from a stack buffer.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Oniguruma Oniguruma_project 6.2.0 (including) 6.2.0 (including)
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el6 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.7 EUS RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el6 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el7 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.3 EUS RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el7 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4 EUS RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el7 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.5 EUS RedHat rh-php70-php-0:7.0.27-1.el7 *
Libonig Ubuntu artful *
Libonig Ubuntu bionic *
Libonig Ubuntu devel *
Libonig Ubuntu trusty *
Libonig Ubuntu xenial *
Libonig Ubuntu yakkety *
Libonig Ubuntu zesty *
Php5 Ubuntu trusty *
Php7.0 Ubuntu xenial *
Php7.0 Ubuntu zesty *
Php7.1 Ubuntu artful *

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