Skip to content

GHSA-59hh-656j-3p7v CVE-2021-41173 GO-2022-0256

Geth Node Vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted p2p message

Medium Go
Severity
5.7 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.24%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 69.20% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
1.10.9
Upgrade github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum to this version or later

Description

Impact

A vulnerable node is susceptible to crash when processing a maliciously crafted message from a peer, via the snap/1 protocol. The crash can be triggered by sending a malicious snap/1 GetTrieNodes package.

Details

On September 21, 2021, geth-team member Gary Rong (@rjl493456442) found a way to crash the snap request handler . By using this vulnerability, a peer connected on the snap/1 protocol could cause a vulnerable node to crash with a panic.

In the trie.TryGetNode implementation, if the requested path is reached, the associated node will be returned. However the nilness is not checked there.

func (t *Trie) tryGetNode(origNode node, path []byte, pos int) (item []byte, newnode node, resolved int, err error) {
	// If we reached the requested path, return the current node
	if pos >= len(path) {
		// Although we most probably have the original node expanded, encoding
		// that into consensus form can be nasty (needs to cascade down) and
		// time consuming. Instead, just pull the hash up from disk directly.
		var hash hashNode
		if node, ok := origNode.(hashNode); ok {
			hash = node
		} else {
			hash, _ = origNode.cache()
		}

More specifically the origNode can be nil(e.g. the child of fullnode) and system can panic at line hash, _ = origNode.cache().

When investigating this, @holiman tried to find it via fuzzing, which uncovered a second crasher, also related to the snap GetTrieNodes package. If the caller requests a storage trie:

				// Storage slots requested, open the storage trie and retrieve from there
				account, err := snap.Account(common.BytesToHash(pathset[0]))
				loads++ // always account database reads, even for failures
				if account == nil {
					break
				}
				stTrie, err := trie.NewSecure(common.BytesToHash(account.Root), triedb)

The code assumes that snap.Account returns either a non-nil response unless error is also provided. This is however not the case, since snap.Account can return nil, nil.

Patches

--- a/eth/protocols/snap/handler.go
+++ b/eth/protocols/snap/handler.go
@@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ func handleMessage(backend Backend, peer *Peer) error {
 				// Storage slots requested, open the storage trie and retrieve from there
 				account, err := snap.Account(common.BytesToHash(pathset[0]))
 				loads++ // always account database reads, even for failures
-				if err != nil {
+				if err != nil || account == nil {
 					break
 				}
 				stTrie, err := trie.NewSecure(common.BytesToHash(account.Root), triedb)
diff --git a/trie/trie.go b/trie/trie.go
index 7ea7efa835..d0f0d4e2bc 100644
--- a/trie/trie.go
+++ b/trie/trie.go
@@ -174,6 +174,10 @@ func (t *Trie) TryGetNode(path []byte) ([]byte, int, error) {
 }
 
 func (t *Trie) tryGetNode(origNode node, path []byte, pos int) (item []byte, newnode node, resolved int, err error) {
+	// If non-existent path requested, abort
+	if origNode == nil {
+		return nil, nil, 0, nil
+	}
 	// If we reached the requested path, return the current node
 	if pos >= len(path) {
 		// Although we most probably have the original node expanded, encoding
@@ -193,10 +197,6 @@ func (t *Trie) tryGetNode(origNode node, path []byte, pos int) (item []byte, new
 	}
 	// Path still needs to be traversed, descend into children
 	switch n := (origNode).(type) {
-	case nil:
-		// Non-existent path requested, abort
-		return nil, nil, 0, nil
-
 	case valueNode:
 		// Path prematurely ended, abort
 		return nil, nil, 0, nil

The fixes were merged into #23657, with commit f1fd963, and released as part of Geth v1.10.9 on Sept 29, 2021.

Workarounds

Apply the patch above or upgrade to a version which is not vulnerable.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
< 1.10.9
1.10.9

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.

github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum Go → 1.10.9

go
go get github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum@v1.10.9 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-m6j8-rg6r-7mv8
Go Ethereum Improperly Validates the ECIES Public Key in RLPx Handshake
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-2gjw-fg97-vg3r
Go Ethereum affected by DoS via malicious p2p message
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-689v-6xwf-5jf3
Go Ethereum affected by DoS via malicious p2p message
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-mq3p-rrmp-79jg
go-ethereum is vulnerable to high CPU usage leading to DoS via malicious p2p message
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-mr7q-c9w9-wh4h
go-ethereum is vulnerable to DoS via malicious p2p message affecting a vulnerable node
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-q26p-9cq4-7fc2
Go Ethereum vulnerable to DoS via malicious p2p message
Medium Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-4xc9-8hmq-j652
go-ethereum vulnerable to DoS via malicious p2p message
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
GHSA-v9jh-j8px-98vq
go-ethereum vulnerable to denial of service via crafted GraphQL query
High Also affects github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
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