CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-17041

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Oct 07, 2019 | Modified: Dec 06, 2021
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu

An issue was discovered in Rsyslog v8.1908.0. contrib/pmaixforwardedfrom/pmaixforwardedfrom.c has a heap overflow in the parser for AIX log messages. The parser tries to locate a log message delimiter (in this case, a space or a colon) but fails to account for strings that do not satisfy this constraint. If the string does not match, then the variable lenMsg will reach the value zero and will skip the sanity check that detects invalid log messages. The message will then be considered valid, and the parser will eat up the nonexistent colon delimiter. In doing so, it will decrement lenMsg, a signed integer, whose value was zero and now becomes minus one. The following step in the parser is to shift left the contents of the message. To do this, it will call memmove with the right pointers to the target and destination strings, but the lenMsg will now be interpreted as a huge value, causing a heap overflow.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Rsyslog Rsyslog 8.1908.0 8.1908.0
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.5 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-tower-35/ansible-tower:3.5.6-1 *
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.6 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-tower-36/ansible-tower:3.6.4-1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat rsyslog-0:8.24.0-52.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat rsyslog-0:8.1911.0-3.el8 *
Rsyslog Ubuntu bionic *
Rsyslog Ubuntu disco *
Rsyslog Ubuntu eoan *
Rsyslog Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Rsyslog Ubuntu precise/esm *
Rsyslog Ubuntu trusty *
Rsyslog Ubuntu upstream *
Rsyslog Ubuntu xenial *

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.

  • Run or compile the software using features or extensions that automatically provide a protection mechanism that mitigates or eliminates buffer overflows.

  • For example, certain compilers and extensions provide automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are built into the compiled code. Examples include the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice.

  • 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].

References