CVE-2021-31881

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), TALON TC Compact (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4), TALON TC Modular (BACnet) (All versions < V3.5.4). When processing a DHCP OFFER message, the DHCP client application does not validate the length of the Vendor option(s), leading to Denial-of-Service conditions. (FSMD-2021-0008)

Weakness

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

Affected Software

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

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