CVE-2021-40346

An integer overflow exists in HAProxy 2.0 through 2.5 in htx_add_header that can be exploited to perform an HTTP request smuggling attack, allowing an attacker to bypass all configured http-request HAProxy ACLs and possibly other ACLs.

Weakness

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound, when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This can introduce other weaknesses when the calculation is used for resource management or execution control.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.0.0 (including)	2.0.25 (excluding)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.2.0 (including)	2.2.17 (excluding)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.3.0 (including)	2.3.14 (excluding)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.4.0 (including)	2.4.4 (excluding)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev0 (including)	2.5-dev0 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev1 (including)	2.5-dev1 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev2 (including)	2.5-dev2 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev3 (including)	2.5-dev3 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev4 (including)	2.5-dev4 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev5 (including)	2.5-dev5 (including)
Haproxy	Haproxy	2.5-dev6 (including)	2.5-dev6 (including)
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.6	RedHat	haproxy-0:2.0.16-2.el7	*
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.7	RedHat	haproxy-0:2.0.19-2.el7	*
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.8	RedHat	haproxy-0:2.2.13-2.el8	*
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.9	RedHat	haproxy-0:2.2.15-2.el8	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	devel	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	focal	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	hirsute	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	impish	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	jammy	*
Haproxy	Ubuntu	trusty	*
Haproxy	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.
If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.
Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
Understand the programming language’s underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, “not-a-number” calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7]
Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/92.html

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40346
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2021-40346

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References