CVE-2019-19204

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	esm-infra-legacy/trusty	*
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.

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-19204
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2019-19204

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References