CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-14812

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Nov 27, 2019 | Modified: Nov 07, 2023
CVSS 3.x
7.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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
7.3 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

A flaw was found in all ghostscript versions 9.x before 9.50, in the .setuserparams2 procedure where it did not properly secure its privileged calls, enabling scripts to bypass -dSAFER restrictions. A specially crafted PostScript file could disable security protection and then have access to the file system, or execute arbitrary commands.

Weakness

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Ghostscript Artifex 9.00 (including) 9.50 (excluding)
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/3scale-operator:1.9-7 *
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/apicast-gateway:1.15-9 *
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/backend:1.9-24 *
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/operator:1.9-7 *
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/toolbox:1.2-5 *
3scale API Management 2.6 on RHEL 7 RedHat 3scale-amp26/zync:1.9-28 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat ghostscript-0:9.25-2.el7_7.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat ghostscript-0:9.25-2.el8_0.3 *
Ghostscript Ubuntu bionic *
Ghostscript Ubuntu devel *
Ghostscript Ubuntu disco *
Ghostscript Ubuntu trusty *
Ghostscript Ubuntu xenial *

Potential Mitigations

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References