CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-23981

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Mar 31, 2021 | Modified: May 03, 2022
CVSS 3.x
8.1
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
5.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.5 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

A texture upload of a Pixel Buffer Object could have confused the WebGL code to skip binding the buffer used to unpack it, resulting in memory corruption and a potentially exploitable information leak or crash. This vulnerability affects Firefox ESR < 78.9, Firefox < 87, and Thunderbird < 78.9.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Firefox Mozilla * 87.0 (excluding)
Firefox_esr Mozilla * 78.9 (excluding)
Thunderbird Mozilla * 78.9 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat firefox-0:78.9.0-1.el7_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat thunderbird-0:78.9.0-3.el7_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat firefox-0:78.9.0-1.el8_3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat thunderbird-0:78.9.0-3.el8_3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Extended Update Support RedHat firefox-0:78.9.0-1.el8_1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Extended Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:78.9.0-3.el8_1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Extended Update Support RedHat firefox-0:78.9.0-1.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Extended Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:78.9.0-3.el8_2 *
Firefox Ubuntu bionic *
Firefox Ubuntu devel *
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 esm-apps/focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu groovy *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs60 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs68 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs68 Ubuntu groovy *
Mozjs68 Ubuntu upstream *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu groovy *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu hirsute *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu impish *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu jammy *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu kinetic *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu lunar *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu upstream *
Thunderbird Ubuntu bionic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu devel *
Thunderbird Ubuntu focal *
Thunderbird Ubuntu groovy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu hirsute *
Thunderbird Ubuntu impish *
Thunderbird Ubuntu jammy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu kinetic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu lunar *
Thunderbird Ubuntu mantic *
Thunderbird Ubuntu noble *
Thunderbird Ubuntu trusty *
Thunderbird Ubuntu upstream *
Thunderbird Ubuntu xenial *

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

  • Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

  • D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

  • Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

  • Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

  • Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

  • Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References