Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-5953

Improper Validation of Consistency within Input

Published: Jun 18, 2024 | Modified: Oct 01, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.7 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5953
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1288.html

A denial of service vulnerability was found in the 389-ds-base LDAP server. This issue may allow an authenticated user to cause a server denial of service while attempting to log in with a user with a malformed hash in their password.

Weakness

The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Red Hat Directory Server 11.7 for RHEL 8 RedHat redhat-ds:11-8080020240909040333.f969626e *
Red Hat Directory Server 11.9 for RHEL 8 RedHat redhat-ds:11-8100020240902112955.37ed7c03 *
Red Hat Directory Server 12.2 EUS for RHEL 9 RedHat redhat-ds:12-9020020240916150035.1674d574 *
Red Hat Directory Server 12.4 for RHEL 9 RedHat redhat-ds:12-9040020240723122852.1674d574 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support RedHat 389-ds-base-0:1.3.11.1-6.el7_9 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat 389-ds:1.4-8100020240910065753.25e700aa *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update Support RedHat 389-ds:1.4-8080020240807050952.6dbb3803 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 RedHat 389-ds-base-0:2.4.5-9.el9_4 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support RedHat 389-ds-base-0:2.2.4-9.el9_2 *
389-ds-base Ubuntu mantic *

Extended Description

Some input data can be structured with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, e.g. a number-of-items field that is followed by the expected number of elements. When such complex inputs are inconsistent, attackers could trigger unexpected errors, cause incorrect actions to take place, or exploit latent vulnerabilities.

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

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2024 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use