Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-40550

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jan 29, 2024 | Modified: Sep 16, 2024
CVSS 3.x
5.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-40550
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

An out-of-bounds read flaw was found in Shim when it tried to validate the SBAT information. This issue may expose sensitive data during the systems boot phase.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Shim Redhat * 15.8 (excluding)
Secureboot-db Ubuntu bionic *
Secureboot-db Ubuntu lunar *
Secureboot-db Ubuntu trusty *
Secureboot-db Ubuntu xenial *
Shim Ubuntu bionic *
Shim Ubuntu devel *
Shim Ubuntu esm-infra-legacy/trusty *
Shim Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Shim Ubuntu focal *
Shim Ubuntu jammy *
Shim Ubuntu lunar *
Shim Ubuntu mantic *
Shim Ubuntu noble *
Shim Ubuntu oracular *
Shim Ubuntu trusty *
Shim Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Shim Ubuntu xenial *
Shim-signed Ubuntu bionic *
Shim-signed Ubuntu devel *
Shim-signed Ubuntu esm-infra-legacy/trusty *
Shim-signed Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Shim-signed Ubuntu focal *
Shim-signed Ubuntu jammy *
Shim-signed Ubuntu lunar *
Shim-signed Ubuntu mantic *
Shim-signed Ubuntu noble *
Shim-signed Ubuntu oracular *
Shim-signed Ubuntu trusty *
Shim-signed Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Shim-signed Ubuntu xenial *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat shim-0:15.8-3.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat shim-signed-0:15.8-1.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat shim-0:15.8-4.el8_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-2.el8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-unsigned-x64-0:15.8-2.el8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat shim-0:15.8-4.el9_3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-3.el9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-unsigned-aarch64-0:15.8-2.el9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-unsigned-x64-0:15.8-2.el9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support RedHat shim-0:15.8-3.el9_2 *

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

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2024 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use