Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-pv36-h7jh-qm62 A-171232105 ASB-A-171232105 GHSA-pv36-h7jh-qm62

Heap buffer overflow in CefSharp

Critical Known exploited NuGet
Severity
6.5 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
63.89%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.22% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
Yes
In CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
Fix
Available
4 packages have a fixed version

Description

Impact

A memory corruption bug(Heap overflow) in the FreeType font rendering library.

This can be exploited by attackers to execute arbitrary code by using specially crafted fonts with embedded PNG images .

As per https://www.secpod.com/blog/chrome-zero-day-under-active-exploitation-patch-now/

Google is aware of reports that an exploit for CVE-2020-15999 exists in the wild.

Patches

Upgrade to 85.3.130 or higher

References

To review the CEF/Chromium patch see https://bitbucket.org/chromiumembedded/cef/commits/cd6cbe008b127990036945fb75e7c2c1594ab10d

Affected versions

NuGet

PackageVulnerableFixed in
CefSharp.Common
< 85.3.130
85.3.130
CefSharp.WinForms
< 85.3.130
85.3.130
CefSharp.Wpf
< 85.3.130
85.3.130
CefSharp.Wpf.HwndHost
< 85.3.130
85.3.130

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

CefSharp.Common NuGet → 85.3.130

dotnet
dotnet add package CefSharp.Common --version 85.3.130

CefSharp.WinForms NuGet → 85.3.130

dotnet
dotnet add package CefSharp.WinForms --version 85.3.130

CefSharp.Wpf NuGet → 85.3.130

dotnet
dotnet add package CefSharp.Wpf --version 85.3.130

CefSharp.Wpf.HwndHost NuGet → 85.3.130

dotnet
dotnet add package CefSharp.Wpf.HwndHost --version 85.3.130

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: 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.
  • Architecture and Design: 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 [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: 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 [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: 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.
  • Architecture and Design: 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 [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: 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 [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-vv6j-ww6x-54gx
Use after free in Animation
High Known exploited Also affects CefSharp.Common
CVE-2020-16017
Use after free in CefSharp
Critical Known exploited Also affects CefSharp.Common
CVE-2020-16013
Inappropriate implementation in V8 in CefSharp
High Known exploited Also affects CefSharp.Common
CVE-2020-16009
Inappropriate implementation in V8
High Known exploited Also affects CefSharp.Common
CVE-2026-88779
Vulnerability in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway.
High Known exploited Same weakness, CWE-119
CVE-2026-88772
Vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler ADC and Citrix NetScaler Gateway.
Critical Known exploited Same weakness, CWE-119
GHSA-55f6-pf8r-c2f4
Open Babel has out-of-bounds write in MOPAC translationVectors[] (UNIT CELL TRANSLATION)
High Same weakness, CWE-119
GHSA-f8h2-c479-vqxf
Open Babel has out-of-bounds write in MSI translationVectors[]
High Same weakness, CWE-119
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor