CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-19204

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Nov 21, 2019 | Modified: Nov 07, 2023
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

An issue was discovered in Oniguruma 6.x before 6.9.4_rc2. In the function fetch_interval_quantifier (formerly known as fetch_range_quantifier) in regparse.c, PFETCH is called without checking PEND. This leads to a heap-based buffer over-read.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Oniguruma Oniguruma_project 6.0.0 (including) 6.9.4 (excluding)
Oniguruma Oniguruma_project 6.9.4-rc1 (including) 6.9.4-rc1 (including)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat php:7.3-8020020200715124551.ceb1cf90 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat oniguruma-0:6.8.2-2.1.el8_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support RedHat oniguruma-0:6.8.2-2.1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat oniguruma-0:6.8.2-2.1.el8_8 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat rh-php73-php-0:7.3.20-1.el7 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 EUS RedHat rh-php73-php-0:7.3.20-1.el7 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.7 EUS RedHat rh-php73-php-0:7.3.20-1.el7 *
Libonig Ubuntu bionic *
Libonig Ubuntu disco *
Libonig Ubuntu eoan *
Libonig Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Libonig Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Libonig Ubuntu trusty *
Libonig Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Libonig 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.

References