NGINX Open Source and NGINX Plus have a vulnerability in the ngx_http_mp4_module module, which might allow an attacker to trigger a buffer over-read or over-write to the NGINX worker memory resulting in its termination or possibly code execution, using a specially crafted MP4 file. This issue affects NGINX Open Source and NGINX Plus if it is built with the ngx_http_mp4_module module and the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Additionally, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger the processing of a specially crafted MP4 file with the ngx_http_mp4_module module.
Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r32-p1 (including) | r32-p1 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r32-p2 (including) | r32-p2 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r32-p3 (including) | r32-p3 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r32-p4 (including) | r32-p4 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r33 (including) | r33 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r33-p1 (including) | r33-p1 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r33-p2 (including) | r33-p2 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r33-p3 (including) | r33-p3 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r34 (including) | r34 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r34-p1 (including) | r34-p1 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r34-p2 (including) | r34-p2 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r35 (including) | r35 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r35-p1 (including) | r35-p1 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r36 (including) | r36 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r36-p1 (including) | r36-p1 (including) |
| Nginx_plus | F5 | r36-p2 (including) | r36-p2 (including) |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | RedHat | nginx-2:1.26.3-2.el10_1.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx-2:1.26.3-1.el10_0.8 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | nginx:1.24-8100020260401080144.489197e6 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | nginx:1.24-9070020260331134728.9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | nginx-2:1.20.1-24.el9_7.2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | nginx:1.26-9070020260407080353.9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | nginx-1:1.20.1-10.el9_0.3 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | nginx-1:1.20.1-14.el9_2.5 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx-1:1.20.1-16.el9_4.5 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx:1.24-9040020260504195322.9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx-2:1.20.1-22.el9_6.5 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx:1.24-9060020260504194843.9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nginx:1.26-9060020260504154614.9 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | nginx-main-1.30.0-1.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5 | RedHat | rhui5/cds-rhel9:1776868774 | * |
| Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5 | RedHat | rhui5/rhua-rhel9:1776868842 | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | esm-infra-legacy/trusty | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | esm-infra-legacy/xenial | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | esm-infra/bionic | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | esm-infra/focal | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | esm-infra/xenial | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | noble | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | questing | * |
| Nginx | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
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.