FreeRDP is a free implementation of the Remote Desktop Protocol. Prior to version 3.20.0, a vulnerability exists in FreeRDP’s certificate handling code on Windows platforms. The function freerdp_certificate_data_hash_ uses the Microsoft-specific _snprintf function to format certificate cache filenames without guaranteeing NUL termination when truncation occurs. According to Microsoft documentation, _snprintf does not append a terminating NUL byte if the formatted output exceeds the destination buffer size. If an attacker controls the hostname value (for example via server redirection or a crafted .rdp file), the resulting filename buffer may not be NUL-terminated. Subsequent string operations performed on this buffer may read beyond the allocated memory region, resulting in a heap-based out-of-bounds read. In default configurations, the connection is typically terminated before sensitive data can be meaningfully exposed, but unintended memory read or a client crash may still occur under certain conditions. Version 3.20.0 has a patch for the issue.
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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