65%
27%
60%
An Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input vulnerability in the Juniper DHCP daemon (jdhcpd) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an adjacent unauthenticated attacker sending a malformed DHCP packet to cause a crash of jdhcpd and thereby a Denial of Service (DoS). If option-82 is configured in a DHCP snooping / -security scenario, jdhcpd crashes if a specific malformed DHCP request packet is received. The DHCP functionality is impacted while jdhcpd restarts, and continued exploitation of the vulnerability will lead to the unavailability of the DHCP service and thereby a sustained DoS. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS 13.2 version 13.2R1 and later versions prior to 15.1R7-S11; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S6; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R2-S9, 18.4R3-S10; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R2-S3, 19.1R3-S7; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S8, 19.2R3-S4; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S7, 19.3R3-S4; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S6; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R3-S3; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3-S3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R3-S1; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R2-S1, 21.1R3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R1-S1, 21.2R2. This issue does not affect Juniper Networks Junos OS version 12.3R12 and prior versions.
CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.5. CVSS Attack Vector: adjacent_network. CVSS Attack Complexity: low. CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).
CVSS 2.0 Base Score 2.9. CVSS Attack Vector: adjacent_network. CVSS Attack Complexity: medium. CVSS Vector: (AV:A/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P).
This example demonstrates a shopping interaction in which the user is free to specify the quantity of items to be purchased and a total is calculated.
...The user has no control over the price variable, however the code does not prevent a negative value from being specified for quantity. If an attacker were to provide a negative value, then the user would have their account credited instead of debited.
This example asks the user for a height and width of an m X n game board with a maximum dimension of 100 squares.
.../* board dimensions */die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n");die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n");die("Value too large: Die evil hacker!\n");While this code checks to make sure the user cannot specify large, positive integers and consume too much memory, it does not check for negative values supplied by the user. As a result, an attacker can perform a resource consumption (CWE-400) attack against this program by specifying two, large negative values that will not overflow, resulting in a very large memory allocation (CWE-789) and possibly a system crash. Alternatively, an attacker can provide very large negative values which will cause an integer overflow (CWE-190) and unexpected behavior will follow depending on how the values are treated in the remainder of the program.
The following example shows a PHP application in which the programmer attempts to display a user's birthday and homepage.
echo "Birthday: $birthday<br>Homepage: <a href=$homepage>click here</a>"The programmer intended for $birthday to be in a date format and $homepage to be a valid URL. However, since the values are derived from an HTTP request, if an attacker can trick a victim into clicking a crafted URL with <script> tags providing the values for birthday and / or homepage, then the script will run on the client's browser when the web server echoes the content. Notice that even if the programmer were to defend the $birthday variable by restricting input to integers and dashes, it would still be possible for an attacker to provide a string of the form:
2009-01-09--If this data were used in a SQL statement, it would treat the remainder of the statement as a comment. The comment could disable other security-related logic in the statement. In this case, encoding combined with input validation would be a more useful protection mechanism.
Furthermore, an XSS (CWE-79) attack or SQL injection (CWE-89) are just a few of the potential consequences when input validation is not used. Depending on the context of the code, CRLF Injection (CWE-93), Argument Injection (CWE-88), or Command Injection (CWE-77) may also be possible.
This function attempts to extract a pair of numbers from a user-supplied string.
}
die("Did not specify integer value. Die evil hacker!\n");/* proceed assuming n and m are initialized correctly */This code attempts to extract two integer values out of a formatted, user-supplied input. However, if an attacker were to provide an input of the form:
123:then only the m variable will be initialized. Subsequent use of n may result in the use of an uninitialized variable (CWE-457).
The following example takes a user-supplied value to allocate an array of objects and then operates on the array.
}list[0] = new Widget();die("Negative value supplied for list size, die evil hacker!");This example attempts to build a list from a user-specified value, and even checks to ensure a non-negative value is supplied. If, however, a 0 value is provided, the code will build an array of size 0 and then try to store a new Widget in the first location, causing an exception to be thrown.
This application has registered to handle a URL when sent an intent:
}......
}
}int length = URL.length();...The application assumes the URL will always be included in the intent. When the URL is not present, the call to getStringExtra() will return null, thus causing a null pointer exception when length() is called.
ExploitPedia is constantly evolving. Sign up to receive a notification when we release additional functionality.
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.