CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-13734

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Dec 10, 2019 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
8.8 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Out of bounds write in SQLite in Google Chrome prior to 79.0.3945.79 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
ChromeGoogle*79.0.3945.79 (excluding)
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.4 for RHEL 7RedHatansible-tower-34/ansible-tower-memcached:1.4.15-28*
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.4 for RHEL 7RedHatansible-tower-35/ansible-tower-memcached:1.4.15-28*
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.4 for RHEL 7RedHatansible-tower-37/ansible-tower-memcached-rhel7:1.4.15-28*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 SupplementaryRedHatchromium-browser-0:79.0.3945.79-1.el6_10*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatsqlite-0:3.7.17-8.el7_7.1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 Extended Update SupportRedHatsqlite-0:3.7.17-8.el7_6.1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatsqlite-0:3.26.0-4.el8_1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatsqlite-0:3.26.0-4.el8_1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatsqlite-0:3.26.0-4.el8_0*
Chromium-browserUbuntubionic*
Chromium-browserUbuntudevel*
Chromium-browserUbuntudisco*
Chromium-browserUbuntueoan*
Chromium-browserUbuntuesm-apps/noble*
Chromium-browserUbuntufocal*
Chromium-browserUbuntugroovy*
Chromium-browserUbuntuhirsute*
Chromium-browserUbuntuimpish*
Chromium-browserUbuntujammy*
Chromium-browserUbuntukinetic*
Chromium-browserUbuntulunar*
Chromium-browserUbuntumantic*
Chromium-browserUbuntunoble*
Chromium-browserUbuntuoracular*
Chromium-browserUbuntuplucky*
Chromium-browserUbuntuquesting*
Chromium-browserUbuntutrusty*
Chromium-browserUbuntuupstream*
Chromium-browserUbuntuxenial*
SqliteUbuntubionic*
SqliteUbuntudisco*
SqliteUbuntueoan*
SqliteUbuntufocal*
SqliteUbuntugroovy*
SqliteUbuntuhirsute*
SqliteUbuntuimpish*
SqliteUbuntukinetic*
SqliteUbuntutrusty*
SqliteUbuntutrusty/esm*
SqliteUbuntuupstream*
SqliteUbuntuxenial*
Sqlite3Ubuntubionic*
Sqlite3Ubuntudisco*
Sqlite3Ubuntueoan*
Sqlite3Ubuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
Sqlite3Ubuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Sqlite3Ubuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Sqlite3Ubuntuprecise/esm*
Sqlite3Ubuntutrusty*
Sqlite3Ubuntutrusty/esm*
Sqlite3Ubuntuupstream*
Sqlite3Ubuntuxenial*

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