CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-29984

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Aug 17, 2021 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
8.8 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Instruction reordering resulted in a sequence of instructions that would cause an object to be incorrectly considered during garbage collection. This led to memory corruption and a potentially exploitable crash. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 78.13, Thunderbird < 91, Firefox ESR < 78.13, and Firefox < 91.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
FirefoxMozilla*91.0 (excluding)
Firefox_esrMozilla*78.13.0 (excluding)
ThunderbirdMozilla*78.13.0 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatfirefox-0:78.13.0-2.el7_9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatthunderbird-0:78.13.0-1.el7_9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatthunderbird-0:78.13.0-1.el8_4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatfirefox-0:78.13.0-2.el8_4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Extended Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:78.13.0-2.el8_1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Extended Update SupportRedHatthunderbird-0:78.13.0-1.el8_1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Extended Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:78.13.0-2.el8_2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Extended Update SupportRedHatthunderbird-0:78.13.0-1.el8_2*
FirefoxUbuntubionic*
FirefoxUbuntudevel*
FirefoxUbuntufocal*
FirefoxUbuntuhirsute*
FirefoxUbuntuimpish*
FirefoxUbuntujammy*
FirefoxUbuntukinetic*
FirefoxUbuntulunar*
FirefoxUbuntumantic*
FirefoxUbuntunoble*
FirefoxUbuntutrusty*
FirefoxUbuntuupstream*
FirefoxUbuntuxenial*
Mozjs38Ubuntubionic*
Mozjs38Ubuntuesm-apps/bionic*
Mozjs38Ubuntuupstream*
Mozjs52Ubuntubionic*
Mozjs52Ubuntuesm-apps/focal*
Mozjs52Ubuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Mozjs52Ubuntufocal*
Mozjs52Ubuntuupstream*
Mozjs68Ubuntuesm-infra/focal*
Mozjs68Ubuntufocal*
Mozjs68Ubuntuupstream*
Mozjs78Ubuntuesm-apps/jammy*
Mozjs78Ubuntuhirsute*
Mozjs78Ubuntuimpish*
Mozjs78Ubuntujammy*
Mozjs78Ubuntukinetic*
Mozjs78Ubuntulunar*
Mozjs78Ubuntuupstream*
ThunderbirdUbuntubionic*
ThunderbirdUbuntudevel*
ThunderbirdUbuntufocal*
ThunderbirdUbuntuhirsute*
ThunderbirdUbuntuimpish*
ThunderbirdUbuntujammy*
ThunderbirdUbuntukinetic*
ThunderbirdUbuntulunar*
ThunderbirdUbuntumantic*
ThunderbirdUbuntunoble*
ThunderbirdUbuntutrusty*
ThunderbirdUbuntuupstream*
ThunderbirdUbuntuxenial*

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