RM4100: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
CVE-2024-6198 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in RM4100 from ViaSat, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 7.7 out of 10. It can be exploited from the same local network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists version 3.8.0.4 as the first without the flaw, so updating RM4100 to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.29% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update RM4100 to 3.8.0.4 or a later version.
- Update RM4200 to 3.8.0.4 or a later version.
- Update EM4100 to 3.8.0.4 or a later version.
- Read the advisory on onekey.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| ViaSat | RM4100 | before 3.8.0.4 | 3.8.0.4 |
| Viasat | RM4200 | before 3.8.0.4 | 3.8.0.4 |
| Viasat | EM4100 | before 3.8.0.4 | 3.8.0.4 |
| Viasat | RM5110 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
| Viasat | RM5111 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
| Viasat | RG1000 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
| Viasat | RG1100 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
| Viasat | EG1000 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
| Viasat | EG1020 | 4.3.0.1 and earlier | Not stated |
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
- AdjacentThe attacker must be on the same local network segment.
- Attack complexity
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:N/AU:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Red. Scored by CNA (onekey.com).
Official description
The device exposes a web interface on ports TCP/3030 and TCP/9882. This web service runs lighttpd, which implements the “SNORE” interface. This interface is affected by a stack buffer overflow vulnerability due to insecure path parsing. An attacker with access to the LAN network interface could use a specially crafted HTTP request to exploit a buffer overflow on the modem.
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: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.