CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2024-23644NVD status: Modified

trillium: Interpretation Conflict

CVE-2024-23644 is a high-severity interpretation conflict vulnerability in trillium from Trillium-rs, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected trillium versions: < 0.5.4; < 0.3.12. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.63% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 51% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Trillium-http to 0.3.12 or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Trillium-rstrillium< 0.5.4; < 0.3.12Not stated
TrilliumTrillium-httpbefore 0.3.120.3.12

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.16.8MediumCNA (github.com)
CVSS 3.18.1HighNVD

Official description

Trillium is a composable toolkit for building internet applications with async rust. In `trillium-http` prior to 0.3.12 and `trillium-client` prior to 0.5.4, insufficient validation of outbound header values may lead to request splitting or response splitting attacks in scenarios where attackers have sufficient control over headers. This only affects use cases where attackers have control of request headers, and can insert "\r\n" sequences. Specifically, if untrusted and unvalidated input is inserted into header names or values. Outbound `trillium_http::HeaderValue` and `trillium_http::HeaderName` can be constructed infallibly and were not checked for illegal bytes when sending requests from the client or responses from the server. Thus, if an attacker has sufficient control over header values (or names) in a request or response that they could inject `\r\n` sequences, they could get the client and server out of sync, and then pivot to gain control over other parts of requests or responses. (i.e. exfiltrating data from other requests, SSRF, etc.) In `trillium-http` versions 0.3.12 and later, if a header name is invalid in server response headers, the specific header and any associated values are omitted from network transmission. Additionally, if a header value is invalid in server response headers, the individual header value is omitted from network transmission. Other headers values with the same header name will still be sent. In `trillium-client` versions 0.5.4 and later, if any header name or header value is invalid in the client request headers, awaiting the client Conn returns an `Error::MalformedHeader` prior to any network access. As a workaround, Trillium services and client applications should sanitize or validate untrusted input that is included in header values and header names. Carriage return, newline, and null characters are not allowed.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

More Interpretation Conflict vulnerabilities (CWE-436)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Interpretation Conflict vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.