CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-11506

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: May 28, 2018 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
7.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.2 HIGH
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.3 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

The sr_do_ioctl function in drivers/scsi/sr_ioctl.c in the Linux kernel through 4.16.12 allows local users to cause a denial of service (stack-based buffer overflow) or possibly have unspecified other impact because sense buffers have different sizes at the CDROM layer and the SCSI layer, as demonstrated by a CDROMREADMODE2 ioctl call.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Linux_kernelLinux4.11 (including)4.14.45 (excluding)
Linux_kernelLinux4.15 (including)4.16.13 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatkernel-alt-0:4.14.0-115.el7a*
LinuxUbuntuartful*
LinuxUbuntubionic*
LinuxUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
LinuxUbuntuupstream*
Linux-awsUbuntubionic*
Linux-awsUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-awsUbuntuupstream*
Linux-azureUbuntubionic*
Linux-azureUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-azureUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-azureUbuntuupstream*
Linux-azureUbuntuxenial*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntuupstream*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntuxenial*
Linux-euclidUbuntuupstream*
Linux-floUbuntutrusty*
Linux-floUbuntuupstream*
Linux-floUbuntuxenial*
Linux-gcpUbuntubionic*
Linux-gcpUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-gcpUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-gcpUbuntuupstream*
Linux-gcpUbuntuxenial*
Linux-gkeUbuntuupstream*
Linux-gkeUbuntuxenial*
Linux-goldfishUbuntutrusty*
Linux-goldfishUbuntuupstream*
Linux-goldfishUbuntuxenial*
Linux-grouperUbuntutrusty*
Linux-grouperUbuntuupstream*
Linux-hweUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-hweUbuntuupstream*
Linux-hweUbuntuxenial*
Linux-hwe-edgeUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-hwe-edgeUbuntuupstream*
Linux-hwe-edgeUbuntuxenial*
Linux-kvmUbuntubionic*
Linux-kvmUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-kvmUbuntuupstream*
Linux-lts-trustyUbuntuupstream*
Linux-lts-utopicUbuntutrusty*
Linux-lts-utopicUbuntuupstream*
Linux-lts-vividUbuntutrusty*
Linux-lts-vividUbuntuupstream*
Linux-lts-wilyUbuntutrusty*
Linux-lts-wilyUbuntuupstream*
Linux-lts-xenialUbuntuupstream*
Linux-maguroUbuntutrusty*
Linux-maguroUbuntuupstream*
Linux-makoUbuntutrusty*
Linux-makoUbuntuupstream*
Linux-makoUbuntuxenial*
Linux-mantaUbuntutrusty*
Linux-mantaUbuntuupstream*
Linux-oemUbuntubionic*
Linux-oemUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-oemUbuntuupstream*
Linux-oemUbuntuxenial*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntuartful*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntubionic*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntuupstream*
Linux-snapdragonUbuntuupstream*

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.

  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

  • D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

  • 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]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

  • Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References