CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-10464

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Oct 29, 2024 | Modified: Nov 04, 2024
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
3.1 LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

Repeated writes to history interface attributes could have been used to cause a Denial of Service condition in the browser. This was addressed by introducing rate-limiting to this API. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 132, Firefox ESR < 128.4, Thunderbird < 128.4, and Thunderbird < 132.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Firefox Mozilla * 128.4.0 (excluding)
Firefox Mozilla * 132.0 (excluding)
Thunderbird Mozilla * 128.4.0 (excluding)
Thunderbird Mozilla 129.0 (including) 132.0 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el7_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_10 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_10 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el8_8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el8_8 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el9_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el9_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el9_5 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el9_5 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el9_0 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el9_0 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support RedHat firefox-0:128.4.0-1.el9_2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support RedHat thunderbird-0:128.4.0-1.el9_2 *
Firefox Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu esm-apps/noble *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu jammy *
Mozjs102 Ubuntu noble *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu devel *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu noble *
Mozjs115 Ubuntu oracular *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Mozjs52 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs68 Ubuntu focal *
Mozjs78 Ubuntu jammy *
Mozjs91 Ubuntu jammy *
Thunderbird Ubuntu focal *
Thunderbird Ubuntu jammy *

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