CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-5719

Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character

Published: Nov 06, 2023 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

The Crimson 3.2 Windows-based configuration tool allows users with administrative access to define new passwords for users and to download the resulting security configuration to a device. If such a password contains the percent (%) character, invalid values will be included, potentially truncating the string if a NUL is encountered. If the simplified password is not detected by the administrator, the device might be left in a vulnerable state as a result of more-easily compromised credentials. Note that passwords entered via the Crimson system web server do not suffer from this vulnerability.

Weakness

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Crimson Redlion * 3.2 (excluding)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0008.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0008.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0014.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0014.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0015.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0015.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0016.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0016.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0020.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0020.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0021.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0021.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0025.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0025.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0026.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0026.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0030.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0030.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0031.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0031.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0035.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0035.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0036.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0036.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0040.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0040.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0041.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0041.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0044.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0044.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0047.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0047.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0050.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0050.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0051.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0051.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0053.0 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0053.0 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0053.1 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0053.1 (including)
Crimson Redlion 3.2-build_3.2.0053.18 (including) 3.2-build_3.2.0053.18 (including)

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.

References