CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2020-3298

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: May 06, 2020 | Modified: Aug 16, 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
7.8 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) implementation of Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the reload of an affected device, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to improper memory protection mechanisms while processing certain OSPF packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a series of malformed OSPF packets in a short period of time to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a reload of the affected device, resulting in a DoS condition for client traffic that is traversing the device.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.2.0 (including) 6.2.3.16 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.3.0 (including) 6.3.0.6 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.4.0 (including) 6.4.0.9 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.5.0 (including) 6.5.0.5 (excluding)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.6.0 (including) 9.6.4.40 (including)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.8.0 (including) 9.8.4.17 (including)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.9.0 (including) 9.9.2.66 (including)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.10.0 (including) 9.10.1.37 (including)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.12.0 (including) 9.12.3.7 (including)
Adaptive_security_appliance_software Cisco 9.13.0 (including) 9.13.1.7 (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