mbed: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
CVE-2024-48984 is a critical-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in mbed, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected mbed versions: 6.16.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.55% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of mbed you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
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
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- 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:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CISA (ADP).
Official description
An issue was discovered in MBed OS 6.16.0. When parsing hci reports, the hci parsing software dynamically determines the length of a list of reports by reading a byte from an input stream. It then fetches the length of the first report, uses it to calculate the beginning of the second report, etc. In doing this, it tracks the largest report so it can later allocate a buffer that fits every individual report (but only one at a time). It does not, however, validate that these addresses are all contained within the buffer passed to hciEvtProcessLeExtAdvReport. It is then possible, though unlikely, that the buffer designated to hold the reports is allocated in such a way that one of these out-of-bounds length fields is contained within the new buffer. When the (n-1)th report is copied, it overwrites the length field of the nth report. This now corrupted length field is then used for a memcpy into the new buffer, which may lead to a buffer overflow.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
- github.com/mbed-ce/mbed-os/pull/387Third Party Advisory
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in mbed
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.