CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-9802

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Apr 26, 2019 | Modified: Jul 21, 2021
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

If a Sandbox content process is compromised, it can initiate an FTP download which will then use a child process to render the downloaded data. The downloaded data can then be passed to the Chrome process with an arbitrary file length supplied by an attacker, bypassing sandbox protections and allow for a potential memory read of adjacent data from the privileged Chrome process, which may include sensitive data. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 66.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Firefox Mozilla * 66.0 (excluding)
Firefox Ubuntu bionic *
Firefox Ubuntu cosmic *
Firefox Ubuntu devel *
Firefox Ubuntu disco *
Firefox Ubuntu eoan *
Firefox Ubuntu focal *
Firefox Ubuntu groovy *
Firefox Ubuntu hirsute *
Firefox Ubuntu impish *
Firefox Ubuntu jammy *
Firefox Ubuntu kinetic *
Firefox Ubuntu lunar *
Firefox Ubuntu mantic *
Firefox Ubuntu noble *
Firefox Ubuntu trusty *
Firefox Ubuntu upstream *
Firefox Ubuntu xenial *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu bionic *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Mozjs38 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu cosmic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu disco *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu eoan *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu groovy *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu cosmic *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu disco *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu eoan *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu upstream *

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