A vulnerability has been identified in APOGEE PXC Compact (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.5), APOGEE PXC Compact (P2 Ethernet) (All versions < V2.8.20), APOGEE PXC Modular (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.5), APOGEE PXC Modular (P2 Ethernet) (All versions < V2.8.20), Nucleus NET (All versions), Nucleus ReadyStart V3 (All versions < V2017.02.3), Nucleus ReadyStart V4 (All versions < V4.1.0), Nucleus Source Code (Versions including affected DNS modules), SIMOTICS CONNECT 400 (All versions < V0.5.0.0), TALON TC Compact (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.5), TALON TC Modular (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.5). The DNS domain name label parsing functionality does not properly validate the null-terminated name in DNS-responses. The parsing of malformed responses could result in a read past the end of an allocated structure. An attacker with a privileged position in the network could leverage this vulnerability to cause a denial-of-service condition or leak the read memory.
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Nucleus_net |
Siemens |
* |
* |
| Nucleus_readystart_v3 |
Siemens |
* |
2017.02.3 (excluding) |
| Nucleus_readystart_v4 |
Siemens |
* |
4.1.0 (excluding) |
| Nucleus_source_code |
Siemens |
- (including) |
- (including) |
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