CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-2961

Out-of-bounds Write

Published: Apr 17, 2024 | Modified: Jul 22, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
8.8 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

The iconv() function in the GNU C Library versions 2.39 and older may overflow the output buffer passed to it by up to 4 bytes when converting strings to the ISO-2022-CN-EXT character set, which may be used to crash an application or overwrite a neighbouring variable.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat glibc-0:2.17-326.el7_9.3 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat glibc-0:2.28-236.el8_9.13 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat glibc-0:2.28-251.el8_10.1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat glibc-0:2.28-236.el8_9.13 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat glibc-0:2.28-251.el8_10.1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.28-101.el8_2.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.28-151.el8_4.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update Service RedHat glibc-0:2.28-151.el8_4.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions RedHat glibc-0:2.28-151.el8_4.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.28-189.10.el8_6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.28-225.el8_8.11 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat glibc-0:2.34-100.el9_4.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat glibc-0:2.34-100.el9_4.2 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Extended Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.34-28.el9_0.6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support RedHat glibc-0:2.34-60.el9_2.14 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.12 RedHat rhcos-412.86.202410010038-0 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.13 RedHat rhcos-413.92.202410081857-0 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.14 RedHat rhcos-414.92.202410112148-0 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.15 RedHat rhcos-415.92.202410020020-0 *
Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 RedHat rhcos-416.94.202410020522-0 *
Red Hat Virtualization 4 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat glibc-0:2.28-189.10.el8_6 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-config-sync-rhel9:1.4.5-2 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-flow-collector-rhel9:1.4.5-2 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-operator-bundle:1.4.5-4 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-router-rhel9:2.4.3-4 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-service-controller-rhel9:1.4.5-2 *
Service Interconnect 1.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat service-interconnect/skupper-site-controller-rhel9:1.4.5-2 *
Eglibc Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Glibc Ubuntu devel *
Glibc Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Glibc Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Glibc Ubuntu focal *
Glibc Ubuntu jammy *
Glibc Ubuntu mantic *
Glibc Ubuntu noble *
Glibc Ubuntu oracular *

Potential Mitigations

  • 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].

References