CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-40116

Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type

Published: Oct 27, 2021 | Modified: Nov 26, 2024
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
7.1 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Multiple Cisco products are affected by a vulnerability in Snort rules that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device.The vulnerability is due to improper handling of the Block with Reset or Interactive Block with Reset actions if a rule is configured without proper constraints. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted IP packet to the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause through traffic to be dropped. Note: Only products with Snort3 configured and either a rule with Block with Reset or Interactive Block with Reset actions configured are vulnerable. Products configured with Snort2 are not vulnerable.

Weakness

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.4.0 (including) 6.4.0.13 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.6.0 (including) 6.6.5.1 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 6.7.0 (including) 6.7.0.3 (excluding)
Firepower_threat_defense Cisco 7.0.0 (including) 7.0.1 (excluding)
Secure_firewall_management_center Cisco 3.1.0.1 (including) 3.1.0.1 (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.

References