A vulnerability in the OLE2 file format parser of ClamAV could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device.
This vulnerability is due to an incorrect check for end-of-string values during scanning, which may result in a heap buffer over-read. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted file containing OLE2 content to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the ClamAV scanning process to terminate, resulting in a DoS condition on the affected software and consuming available system resources.
For a description of this vulnerability, see the ClamAV blog .
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Secure_endpoint |
Cisco |
* |
7.5.17 (excluding) |
| Secure_endpoint |
Cisco |
8.0.1.21160 (including) |
8.2.3.30119 (excluding) |
| Secure_endpoint_private_cloud |
Cisco |
* |
3.8.0 (excluding) |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
bionic |
* |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
devel |
* |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
mantic |
* |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
noble |
* |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
trusty |
* |
| Clamav |
Ubuntu |
xenial |
* |
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