Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-18445

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Oct 17, 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
4.7 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Vulnerability-free packages from our partners
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-18445
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

In the Linux kernel 4.14.x, 4.15.x, 4.16.x, 4.17.x, and 4.18.x before 4.18.13, faulty computation of numeric bounds in the BPF verifier permits out-of-bounds memory accesses because adjust_scalar_min_max_vals in kernel/bpf/verifier.c mishandles 32-bit right shifts.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Linux_kernelLinux4.14.9 (including)4.14.75 (excluding)
Linux_kernelLinux4.15 (including)4.18.13 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatkernel-rt-0:3.10.0-957.10.1.rt56.921.el7*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatkernel-0:3.10.0-957.10.1.el7*
LinuxUbuntubionic*
LinuxUbuntucosmic*
LinuxUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
LinuxUbuntuupstream*
Linux-awsUbuntubionic*
Linux-awsUbuntucosmic*
Linux-awsUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-awsUbuntuupstream*
Linux-aws-hweUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-aws-hweUbuntuupstream*
Linux-aws-hweUbuntuxenial*
Linux-azureUbuntubionic*
Linux-azureUbuntucosmic*
Linux-azureUbuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
Linux-azureUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-azureUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-azureUbuntutrusty*
Linux-azureUbuntutrusty/esm*
Linux-azureUbuntuupstream*
Linux-azureUbuntuxenial*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntubionic*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntuupstream*
Linux-azure-edgeUbuntuxenial*
Linux-euclidUbuntuupstream*
Linux-floUbuntutrusty*
Linux-floUbuntuupstream*
Linux-floUbuntuxenial*
Linux-gcpUbuntubionic*
Linux-gcpUbuntucosmic*
Linux-gcpUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-gcpUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Linux-gcpUbuntuupstream*
Linux-gcpUbuntuxenial*
Linux-gcp-edgeUbuntuupstream*
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-kvmUbuntucosmic*
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-oemUbuntucosmic*
Linux-oemUbuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Linux-oemUbuntuupstream*
Linux-oemUbuntuxenial*
Linux-oracleUbuntuupstream*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntubionic*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntucosmic*
Linux-raspi2Ubuntuupstream*
Linux-snapdragonUbuntuupstream*

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

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2026 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use