CVE-2021-31345

A vulnerability has been identified in APOGEE MBC (PPC) (BACnet) (All versions), APOGEE MBC (PPC) (P2 Ethernet) (All versions), APOGEE MEC (PPC) (BACnet) (All versions), APOGEE MEC (PPC) (P2 Ethernet) (All versions), APOGEE PXC Compact (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4), APOGEE PXC Compact (P2 Ethernet) (All versions < V2.8.19), APOGEE PXC Modular (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4), APOGEE PXC Modular (P2 Ethernet) (All versions < V2.8.19), Capital VSTAR (All versions with enabled Ethernet options), Desigo PXC00-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC00-U (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC001-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC100-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC12-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC128-U (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC200-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC22-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC22.1-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC36.1-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC50-E.D (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXC64-U (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Desigo PXM20-E (All versions >= V2.3 and < V6.30.016), Nucleus NET (All versions), Nucleus ReadyStart V3 (All versions < V2017.02.4), Nucleus Source Code (All versions), PLUSCONTROL 1st Gen (All versions), TALON TC Compact (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4), TALON TC Modular (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4). The total length of an UDP payload (set in the IP header) is unchecked. This may lead to various side effects, including Information Leak and Denial-of-Service conditions, depending on a user-defined applications that runs on top of the UDP protocol. (FSMD-2021-0006)

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Specified quantities include size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, and others. Code may rely on specified quantities to allocate resources, perform calculations, control iteration, etc. When the quantity is not properly validated, then attackers can specify malicious quantities to cause excessive resource allocation, trigger unexpected failures, enable buffer overflows, etc.

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.

References

• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-044112.pdf
• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-114589.pdf
• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-620288.pdf
• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-845392.pdf