An out-of-bounds read (buffer over-read) vulnerability exists in QTextCodec::codecForName() in Qt. When the function is called with a QByteArray that is not NUL-terminated (for example, one created with QByteArray::fromRawData()), the codec-name matching routine reads past the end of the supplied buffer. In most cases this results in an incorrect text codec being selected; in the worst case, if the over-read reaches unmapped memory, the process crashes (denial of service). The over-read is bounded by the length of the longest codec-name candidate, and the out-of-bounds bytes are only compared internally against Qts fixed list of codec names, so no data is disclosed to an attacker. Applications that do not pass non-NUL-terminated QByteArrays to QTextCodec::codecForName() are not exposed. The affected code resides in the Qt5Compat module from Qt 6.0.0 onward, and in Qt Core (qtbase) in Qt 4.x and Qt 5.x.
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | RedHat | qt6-qt5compat-0:6.10.1-1.el10_2.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | qt5-qtbase-0:5.15.3-9.el8_10 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | qt5-qtbase-0:5.15.9-11.el9_8.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | qt5-qtbase-0:5.15.3-2.el9_2.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | qt5-qtbase-0:5.15.9-11.el9_4.1 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support | RedHat | qt5-qtbase-0:5.15.9-11.el9_6.1 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | qt6-main-6.11.1-2.hum1 | * |
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.