The Zephyr ADIN2111/ADIN1110 10BASE-T1S/T1L Ethernet driver (drivers/ethernet/eth_adin2111.c) reassembles received Ethernet frames in OPEN Alliance (OA) SPI mode by copying device-supplied 64-byte data chunks into a fixed static buffer ctx->buf of size CONFIG_ETH_ADIN2111_BUFFER_SIZE (default 1524 bytes). In eth_adin2111_oa_data_read(), each valid chunk was memcpyd into ctx->buf[ctx->scur] and the write cursor scur advanced, with no check that scur + len stayed within the buffer. The number of chunks (up to 255, from the BUFSTS RCA field) and the per-chunk length are taken entirely from the frame data received off the wire; the cursor is only reset on a start-of-frame chunk. An attacker on the single-pair Ethernet segment can therefore send a frame whose reassembled size exceeds the configured buffer, causing the drivers RX offload thread to write attacker-controlled frame bytes past the end of the static buffer into adjacent driver/kernel memory (up to roughly 14.8 KB in the worst case). This is a remotely/adjacently reachable out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) that can corrupt memory and cause denial of service or potentially code execution. The defect was introduced when OA SPI support was added (commit 0ca8b0756b1) and shipped in releases v3.7.0 through v4.4.0. The fix adds a bounds check that drops the oversized frame and resets the cursor before the copy.
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.
Related Attack Patterns
References
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/158df8d088316cdae20816fc07703892280b2acb
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/c98321cbfef23c0e3bdf043ccf6b421067c8d508
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-hm6v-4jh4-3qc4
- https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-hm6v-4jh4-3qc4