Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-5wpj-c6f7-24x8 BIT-tensorflow-2022-29207 CVE-2022-29207 PYSEC-2026-3112 PYSEC-2026-3280 PYSEC-2026-955

Undefined behavior when users supply invalid resource handles

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.60% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-475 Undefined Behavior for Input to API
Fix
Available
3 packages have a fixed version

Description

Impact

Multiple TensorFlow operations misbehave in eager mode when the resource handle provided to them is invalid:

import tensorflow as tf

tf.raw_ops.QueueIsClosedV2(handle=[])

import tensorflow as tf

tf.summary.flush(writer=())

In graph mode, it would have been impossible to perform these API calls, but migration to TF 2.x eager mode opened up this vulnerability. If the resource handle is empty, then a reference is bound to a null pointer inside TensorFlow codebase (various codepaths). This is undefined behavior.

Patches

We have patched the issue in GitHub commit a5b89cd68c02329d793356bda85d079e9e69b4e7 and GitHub commit dbdd98c37bc25249e8f288bd30d01e118a7b4498.

The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.9.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.8.1, TensorFlow 2.7.2, and TensorFlow 2.6.4, 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 Hong Jin from Singapore Management University.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
tensorflow
< 2.6.4
2.6.4
tensorflow
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
2.7.2
tensorflow
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.8.1
tensorflow
< 2.6.4
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.6.4
2.7.2
2.8.1
tensorflow-cpu
< 2.6.4
2.6.4
tensorflow-cpu
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
2.7.2
tensorflow-cpu
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.8.1
tensorflow-cpu
< 2.6.4
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.6.4
2.7.2
2.8.1
tensorflow-gpu
< 2.6.4
2.6.4
tensorflow-gpu
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
2.7.2
tensorflow-gpu
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.8.1
tensorflow-gpu
< 2.6.4
>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1
2.6.4
2.7.2
2.8.1

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 → 2.6.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow>=2.6.4"
poetry
poetry add "tensorflow>=2.6.4"
uv
uv add "tensorflow>=2.6.4"

tensorflow-cpu PyPI → 2.6.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"
poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"
uv
uv add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"

tensorflow-gpu PyPI → 2.6.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"
poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"
uv
uv add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.5

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
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.

CWE-475: Undefined Behavior for Input to API

The behavior of this function is undefined unless its control parameter is set to a specific value.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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