A vulnerability has been identified in JT2Go (All versions < V14.3.0.1), Teamcenter Visualization V13.3 (All versions < V13.3.0.12), Teamcenter Visualization V14.0 (All versions), Teamcenter Visualization V14.1 (All versions < V14.1.0.11), Teamcenter Visualization V14.2 (All versions < V14.2.0.6), Teamcenter Visualization V14.3 (All versions < V14.3.0.1), Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2201 (All versions < V2201.0010), Tecnomatix Plant Simulation V2302 (All versions < V2302.0004). The affected application is vulnerable to stack-based buffer overflow while parsing specially crafted WRL files. This could allow an attacker to execute code in the context of the current process. (ZDI-CAN-20818)
Weakness
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jt2go | Siemens | * | 14.3.0.1 (excluding) |
| Teamcenter_visualization | Siemens | 13.3.0 (including) | 13.4.0.12 (excluding) |
| Teamcenter_visualization | Siemens | 14.0 (including) | 14.1.0.11 (excluding) |
| Teamcenter_visualization | Siemens | 14.2 (including) | 14.2.0.6 (excluding) |
| Teamcenter_visualization | Siemens | 14.3 (including) | 14.3.0.1 (excluding) |
| Tecnomatix_plant_simulation | Siemens | 2201.0 (including) | 2201.0010 (excluding) |
| Tecnomatix_plant_simulation | Siemens | 2302.0 (including) | 2302.0004 (including) |
Potential Mitigations
- 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.
- 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].