GHSA-735f-pg76-fxc4 CVE-2022-2274 RUSTSEC-2022-0033
openssl-src heap memory corruption with RSA private key operation
Critical
crates.io
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 48.23%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 98.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
- Fix
300.0.9- Upgrade openssl-src to this version or later
Description
The OpenSSL 3.0.4 release introduced a serious bug in the RSA implementation for X86_64 CPUs supporting the AVX512IFMA instructions. This issue makes the RSA implementation with 2048 bit private keys incorrect on such machines and memory corruption will happen during the computation. As a consequence of the memory corruption an attacker may be able to trigger a remote code execution on the machine performing the computation. SSL/TLS servers or other servers using 2048 bit RSA private keys running on machines supporting AVX512IFMA instructions of the X86_64 architecture are affected by this issue.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl-src | >= 300.0.8, < 300.0.9 |
300.0.9 |
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.
openssl-src crates.io → 300.0.9
- cargo
cargo update -p openssl-src --precise 300.0.9
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
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
- github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/18625
- git.openssl.org/gitweb
- rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2022-0033.html
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20220715-0010
- openssl.org/news/secadv/20220705.txt
- git.openssl.org/gitweb
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-332410.html
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-398330.html
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-794697.html
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-w67w-mw4j-8qrv openssl-src contains Read Buffer Overflow in X.509 Name Constraint | Medium | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-vrh7-x64v-7vxq openssl-src contains `NULL` dereference during PKCS7 data verification | High | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-vxrh-cpg7-8vjr openssl-src subject to NULL dereference validating DSA public key | High | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-r7jw-wp68-3xch openssl-src vulnerable to Use-after-free following `BIO_new_NDEF` | High | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-v5w6-wcm8-jm4q openssl-src contains Double free after calling `PEM_read_bio_ex` | High | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-p52g-cm5j-mjv4 openssl-src subject to Timing Oracle in RSA Decryption | Medium | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-29xx-hcv2-c4cp openssl-src subject to Invalid pointer dereference in `d2i_PKCS7` functions | High | Also affects openssl-src |
| GHSA-x4qr-2fvf-3mr5 Vulnerable OpenSSL included in cryptography wheels | High | Also affects openssl-src |
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