GHSA-5h46-h7hh-c6x9 CVE-2021-32714 RUSTSEC-2021-0079
Integer Overflow in Chunked Transfer-Encoding
- Severity
- 5.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.16%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 67.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- Fix
0.14.10- Upgrade hyper to this version or later
Description
Summary
hyper's HTTP server and client code had a flaw that could trigger an integer overflow when decoding chunk sizes that are too big. This allows possible data loss, or if combined with an upstream HTTP proxy that allows chunk sizes larger than hyper does, can result in "request smuggling" or "desync attacks".
Vulnerability
Example:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
f0000000000000003
abc
0
hyper only reads the rightmost 64-bit integer as the chunk size. So it reads f0000000000000003 as 3. A loss of data can occur since hyper would then read only 3 bytes of the body. Additionally, an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability would occur if using a proxy which instead has prefix truncation in the chunk size, or that understands larger than 64-bit chunk sizes.
Read more about desync attacks: https://portswigger.net/research/http-desync-attacks-request-smuggling-reborn
Impact
To determine if vulnerable to data loss, these things must be true:
- Using HTTP/1.1. Since HTTP/2 does not use chunked encoding, it is not vulnerable.
- Using hyper as a server or client. The body would be improperly truncated in either case.
- Users send requests or responses with chunk sizes greater than 18 exabytes.
To determine if vulnerable to desync attacks, these things must be true:
- Using an upstream proxy that allows chunks sizes larger than 64-bit. If the proxy rejects chunk sizes that are too large, that request won't be forwarded to hyper.
Patches
We have released the following patch versions:
- v0.14.10 (to be released when this advisory is published)
Workarounds
Besides upgrading hyper, you can take the following options:
- Reject requests manually that contain a
Transfer-Encodingheader. - Ensure any upstream proxy rejects
Transfer-Encodingchunk sizes greater than what fits in 64-bit unsigned integers.
Credits
This issue was initially reported by Mattias Grenfeldt and Asta Olofsson.
Affected versions
crates.io
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.
hyper crates.io → 0.14.10
- cargo
cargo update -p hyper --precise 0.14.10
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
- 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 [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
- Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
- Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
- 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.
- Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-f67m-9j94-qv9j Parser creates invalid uninitialized value | High | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-f3pg-qwvg-p99c Lenient Parsing of Content-Length Header When Prefixed with Plus Sign | Low | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-6hfq-h8hq-87mf HTTP Request Smuggling in hyper | Medium | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-h3qr-rq2j-74w4 HTTP Request Smuggling in hyper | Critical | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-q89x-f52w-6hj2 Headers containing newline characters can split messages in hyper | Medium | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-9xjr-m6f3-v5wm HTTPS MitM vulnerability due to lack of hostname verification | Medium | Also affects hyper |
| GHSA-4642-5mcj-2rqw Forge: ASN.1 OID first arc truncation in asn1.oidToDer | Low | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
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