CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-28182

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: May 17, 2022 | Modified: May 26, 2022
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

NVIDIA GPU Display Driver for Windows contains a vulnerability in the DirectX11 user mode driver (nvwgf2um/x.dll), where an unauthorized attacker on the network can cause an out-of-bounds write through a specially crafted shader, which may lead to code execution to cause denial of service, escalation of privileges, information disclosure, and data tampering. The scope of the impact may extend to other components.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Gpu_display_driver Nvidia - (including) - (including)
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-304 Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-304 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-304 Ubuntu xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-304-updates Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-304-updates Ubuntu xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 Ubuntu xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-340-updates Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-352 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-352-updates Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-367 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-375 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-384 Ubuntu trusty *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-384 Ubuntu xenial *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu impish *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu kinetic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu lunar *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 Ubuntu mantic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu impish *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu kinetic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu lunar *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-435 Ubuntu mantic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu impish *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu kinetic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu lunar *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440 Ubuntu mantic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu impish *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu kinetic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-440-server Ubuntu lunar *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu focal *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu impish *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu jammy *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu kinetic *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu lunar *
Nvidia-graphics-drivers-455 Ubuntu mantic *

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

  • Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

  • D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

  • Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

  • Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

  • Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

  • Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

  • For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References