CVE Vulnerabilities


Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jul 11, 2019 | Modified: Nov 07, 2023
CVSS 3.x
CVSS 2.x

An issue was discovered in Squid 2.x through 2.7.STABLE9, 3.x through 3.5.28, and 4.x through 4.7. When Squid is configured to use Basic Authentication, the Proxy-Authorization header is parsed via uudecode. uudecode determines how many bytes will be decoded by iterating over the input and checking its table. The length is then used to start decoding the string. There are no checks to ensure that the length it calculates isnt greater than the input buffer. This leads to adjacent memory being decoded as well. An attacker would not be able to retrieve the decoded data unless the Squid maintainer had configured the display of usernames on error pages.


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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Squid Squid-cache 2.0 (including) 2.7 (excluding)
Squid Squid-cache 3.0 (including) 3.5.28 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 4.0 (including) 4.7 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable1 (including) 2.7-stable1 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable2 (including) 2.7-stable2 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable3 (including) 2.7-stable3 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable4 (including) 2.7-stable4 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable5 (including) 2.7-stable5 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable6 (including) 2.7-stable6 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable7 (including) 2.7-stable7 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable8 (including) 2.7-stable8 (including)
Squid Squid-cache 2.7-stable9 (including) 2.7-stable9 (including)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat squid:4-8030020200828070549.30b713e6 *
Squid Ubuntu cosmic *
Squid Ubuntu devel *
Squid Ubuntu disco *
Squid Ubuntu trusty *
Squid Ubuntu upstream *
Squid3 Ubuntu bionic *
Squid3 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Squid3 Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Squid3 Ubuntu precise/esm *
Squid3 Ubuntu upstream *
Squid3 Ubuntu xenial *

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.