CVE-2019-18288 - Out-of-bounds Write

Severity

88%

Complexity

27%

Confidentiality

98%

CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.8. CVSS Attack Vector: network. CVSS Attack Complexity: low. CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).

CVSS 2.0 Base Score 6.5. CVSS Attack Vector: network. CVSS Attack Complexity: low. CVSS Vector: (AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P).

Demo Examples

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

The following code attempts to save four different identification numbers into an array.


               
id_sequence[3] = 456;

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

In the following example, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed:


               
}
.../* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory,* else, return -1 to indicate an error*/
...

If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788).

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer.


               
}
strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name);/*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */

This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname, however there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then we may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker.

Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476).

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

This example applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer.


               
}
return dst_buf;
die("user string too long, die evil hacker!");
else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i];
dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';';
/* encode to < */

The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string, however the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands.

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

In the following C/C++ example, a utility function is used to trim trailing whitespace from a character string. The function copies the input string to a local character string and uses a while statement to remove the trailing whitespace by moving backward through the string and overwriting whitespace with a NUL character.


               
}
return retMessage;// copy input string to a temporary string
message[index] = strMessage[index];
// trim trailing whitespace
len--;
// return string without trailing whitespace

However, this function can cause a buffer underwrite if the input character string contains all whitespace. On some systems the while statement will move backwards past the beginning of a character string and will call the isspace() function on an address outside of the bounds of the local buffer.

Out-of-bounds Write

CWE-787

The following is an example of code that may result in a buffer underwrite, if find() returns a negative value to indicate that ch is not found in srcBuf:


               
}
...

If the index to srcBuf is somehow under user control, this is an arbitrary write-what-where condition.

Demo Examples

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

CWE-434

The following code intends to allow a user to upload a picture to the web server. The HTML code that drives the form on the user end has an input field of type "file".


               
</form>

Once submitted, the form above sends the file to upload_picture.php on the web server. PHP stores the file in a temporary location until it is retrieved (or discarded) by the server side code. In this example, the file is moved to a more permanent pictures/ directory.


               
}// Define the target location where the picture being// uploaded is going to be saved.// Move the uploaded file to the new location.
echo "The picture has been successfully uploaded.";
echo "There was an error uploading the picture, please try again.";

The problem with the above code is that there is no check regarding type of file being uploaded. Assuming that pictures/ is available in the web document root, an attacker could upload a file with the name:


               
malicious.php

Since this filename ends in ".php" it can be executed by the web server. In the contents of this uploaded file, the attacker could use:


               
?>
system($_GET['cmd']);

Once this file has been installed, the attacker can enter arbitrary commands to execute using a URL such as:


               
http://server.example.com/upload_dir/malicious.php?cmd=ls%20-l

which runs the "ls -l" command - or any other type of command that the attacker wants to specify.

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

CWE-434

The following code demonstrates the unrestricted upload of a file with a Java servlet and a path traversal vulnerability. The HTML code is the same as in the previous example with the action attribute of the form sending the upload file request to the Java servlet instead of the PHP code.


               
</form>

When submitted the Java servlet's doPost method will receive the request, extract the name of the file from the Http request header, read the file contents from the request and output the file to the local upload directory.


               
}
{...}
// output successful upload response HTML page
bw.close();
}
bw.flush();
...

As with the previous example this code does not perform a check on the type of the file being uploaded. This could allow an attacker to upload any executable file or other file with malicious code.

Additionally, the creation of the BufferedWriter object is subject to relative path traversal (CWE-22, CWE-23). Depending on the executing environment, the attacker may be able to specify arbitrary files to write to, leading to a wide variety of consequences, from code execution, XSS (CWE-79), or system crash.

Overview

First reported 5 years ago

2019-12-12 19:15:00

Last updated 5 years ago

2020-03-10 20:15:00

Affected Software

Siemens SPPA-T3000 Application Server

Stay updated

ExploitPedia is constantly evolving. Sign up to receive a notification when we release additional functionality.

Get in touch

If you'd like to report a bug or have any suggestions for improvements then please do get in touch with us using this form. We will get back to you as soon as we can.