Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications running on PowerPC CPU based platforms if the CPU provides vector instructions.
Impact summary: If an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences.
The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL for PowerPC CPUs restores the contents of vector registers in a different order than they are saved. Thus the contents of some of these vector registers are corrupted when returning to the caller. The vulnerable code is used only on newer PowerPC processors supporting the PowerISA 2.07 instructions.
The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However unless the compiler uses the vector registers for storing pointers, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service.
The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3. If this cipher is enabled on the server a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used. This implies that TLS server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue.
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openssl | Openssl | 3.0.0 (including) | 3.0.12 (including) |
| Openssl | Openssl | 3.1.0 (including) | 3.1.4 (including) |
| Openssl | Openssl | 3.2.0 (including) | 3.2.0 (including) |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | oracular | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
| Nodejs | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Nodejs | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | fips-preview/jammy | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | fips-updates/jammy | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | oracular | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
| Openssl1.0 | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | openssl-1:3.0.7-27.el9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | edk2-0:20240524-6.el9_5 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | openssl-1:3.0.7-27.el9 | * |
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].