CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-21688

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jan 18, 2022 | Modified: Jan 25, 2022
CVSS 3.x
5.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
4.3 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

OnionShare is an open source tool that lets you securely and anonymously share files, host websites, and chat with friends using the Tor network. Affected versions of the desktop application were found to be vulnerable to denial of service via an undisclosed vulnerability in the QT image parsing. Roughly 20 bytes lead to 2GB memory consumption and this can be triggered multiple times. To be abused, this vulnerability requires rendering in the history tab, so some user interaction is required. An adversary with knowledge of the Onion service address in public mode or with authentication in private mode can perform a Denial of Service attack, which quickly results in out-of-memory for the server. This requires the desktop application with rendered history, therefore the impact is only elevated. This issue has been patched in version 2.5.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Onionshare Onionshare * 2.5 (excluding)
Onionshare Ubuntu bionic *
Onionshare Ubuntu impish *
Onionshare Ubuntu lunar *
Onionshare Ubuntu trusty *
Onionshare Ubuntu xenial *

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.

References