GHSA-3qxp-qjq7-w4hf BIT-tensorflow-2021-29531 CVE-2021-29531 PYSEC-2021-168 PYSEC-2021-459 PYSEC-2021-657
CHECK-fail in tf.raw_ops.EncodePng
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Low · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.19%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.58% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
- Fix
- Available
- 3 packages have a fixed version
Description
Impact
An attacker can trigger a CHECK fail in PNG encoding by providing an empty input tensor as the pixel data:
import tensorflow as tf
image = tf.zeros([0, 0, 3])
image = tf.cast(image, dtype=tf.uint8)
tf.raw_ops.EncodePng(image=image)
This is because the implementation only validates that the total number of pixels in the image does not overflow. Thus, an attacker can send an empty matrix for encoding. However, if the tensor is empty, then the associated buffer is nullptr. Hence, when calling png::WriteImageToBuffer, the first argument (i.e., image.flat<T>().data()) is NULL. This then triggers the CHECK_NOTNULL in the first line of png::WriteImageToBuffer.
template <typename T>
bool WriteImageToBuffer(
const void* image, int width, int height, int row_bytes, int num_channels,
int channel_bits, int compression, T* png_string,
const std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::string> >* metadata) {
CHECK_NOTNULL(image);
...
}
Since image is null, this results in abort being called after printing the stacktrace. Effectively, this allows an attacker to mount a denial of service attack.
Patches
We have patched the issue in GitHub commit 26eb323554ffccd173e8a79a8c05c15b685ae4d1.
The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.5.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.4.2, TensorFlow 2.3.3, TensorFlow 2.2.3 and TensorFlow 2.1.4, as these are also affected and still in supported range.
For more information
Please consult our security guide for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.
Attribution
This vulnerability has been reported by Yakun Zhang and Ying Wang of Baidu X-Team.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| tensorflow | < 2.1.4 |
2.1.4 |
| tensorflow | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3 |
2.2.3 |
| tensorflow | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3 |
2.3.3 |
| tensorflow | >= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.4.2 |
| tensorflow | < 2.1.4>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.1.42.2.32.3.32.4.2 |
| tensorflow-cpu | < 2.1.4 |
2.1.4 |
| tensorflow-cpu | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3 |
2.2.3 |
| tensorflow-cpu | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3 |
2.3.3 |
| tensorflow-cpu | >= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.4.2 |
| tensorflow-cpu | < 2.1.4>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.1.42.2.32.3.32.4.2 |
| tensorflow-gpu | < 2.1.4 |
2.1.4 |
| tensorflow-gpu | >= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3 |
2.2.3 |
| tensorflow-gpu | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3 |
2.3.3 |
| tensorflow-gpu | >= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.4.2 |
| tensorflow-gpu | < 2.1.4>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2 |
2.1.42.2.32.3.32.4.2 |
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.
tensorflow PyPI → 2.1.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow>=2.1.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow>=2.1.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow>=2.1.4"
tensorflow-cpu PyPI → 2.1.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-cpu>=2.1.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.1.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.1.4"
tensorflow-gpu PyPI → 2.1.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-gpu>=2.1.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.1.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.1.4"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 2.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
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. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
- Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/security/advisories/GHSA-3qxp-qjq7-w4hf
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/commit/26eb323554ffccd173e8a79a8c05c15b685ae4d1
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/tensorflow-cpu/PYSEC-2021-459…
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/tensorflow-gpu/PYSEC-2021-657…
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/tensorflow/PYSEC-2021-168.yaml
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gjh7-xx4r-x345 TensorFlow has segfault in array_ops.upper_bound | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-fxgc-95xx-grvq TensorFlow Denial of Service vulnerability | Medium | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-93vr-9q9m-pj8p TensorFlow vulnerable to Out-of-Bounds Read in DynamicStitch | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-qjqc-vqcf-5qvj TensorFlow vulnerable to seg fault in `tf.raw_ops.Print` | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-7jvm-xxmr-v5cw TensorFlow vulnerable to integer overflow in EditDistance | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-64jg-wjww-7c5w TensorFlow has Null Pointer Error in TensorArrayConcatV2 | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-6hg6-5c2q-7rcr TensorFlow has Heap-buffer-overflow in AvgPoolGrad | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-558h-mq8x-7q9g TensorFlow has Null Pointer Error in SparseSparseMaximum | High | Also affects tensorflow |
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