CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-49295

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Jan 10, 2024 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
6.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

quic-go is an implementation of the QUIC protocol (RFC 9000, RFC 9001, RFC 9002) in Go. An attacker can cause its peer to run out of memory sending a large number of PATH_CHALLENGE frames. The receiver is supposed to respond to each PATH_CHALLENGE frame with a PATH_RESPONSE frame. The attacker can prevent the receiver from sending out (the vast majority of) these PATH_RESPONSE frames by collapsing the peers congestion window (by selectively acknowledging received packets) and by manipulating the peers RTT estimate. This vulnerability has been patched in versions 0.37.7, 0.38.2 and 0.39.4.

Weakness

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Quic-go Quic-go_project * 0.37.7 (excluding)
Quic-go Quic-go_project 0.38.0 (including) 0.38.2 (excluding)
Quic-go Quic-go_project 0.39.0 (including) 0.39.4 (excluding)
Quic-go Quic-go_project 0.40.0 (including) 0.40.0 (including)
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 8 RedHat receptor-0:1.4.4-1.el8ap *
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat receptor-0:1.4.4-1.el9ap *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu bionic *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu lunar *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu mantic *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu oracular *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu trusty *
Golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-go Ubuntu xenial *

Potential Mitigations

  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:

  • The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.

  • The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.

References