The Nuvoton NuMaker HSUSBD USB device-controller driver (drivers/usb/udc/udc_numaker.c) armed the control Data IN stage unconditionally (base->CEPTXCNT = len in numaker_hsusbd_ep_trigger). Because the HSUSBD hardware cannot disarm a control Data IN already armed for a previous transfer, a USB host that cancels an in-flight control transfer (timeout) and then issues a new SETUP packet can drive the driver out of sync: stale data may be transmitted in the new transfer and the control endpoint can become permanently stuck NAKing every subsequent control transfer.
A malicious or buggy host (physical/adjacent attacker driving the bus) can repeatedly cancel-and-re-SETUP to wedge the devices USB control endpoint, denying service to the devices USB function (the device stops enumerating/responding on the control pipe) until a USB reset or re-plug. The flaw is an availability-only denial of service; the FIFO copy loops (bounded by net_buf length and the hardware BUFFULL flag) and the net_buf lifecycle are independent of the arming desync, so there is no out-of-bounds access, use-after-free, or information leak.
The fix monitors the IN-token and new-SETUP events (k_event) and only arms control Data IN when an IN token is present and no new SETUP has arrived, cancelling the current transfer on a new SETUP. Affects boards using the Nuvoton NuMaker HSUSBD controller (CONFIG_UDC_NUMAKER with DT_HAS_NUVOTON_NUMAKER_HSUSBD_ENABLED); shipped in v4.4.0.
Weakness
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zephyr | Zephyrproject | 4.4.0 (including) | 4.4.1 (including) |
Potential Mitigations
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
Related Attack Patterns
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/147.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/227.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/492.html