GHSA-c2v4-chx5-vff6
Duplicate Advisory: Integer overflow in cmark-gfm table parsing extension leads to heap memory corruption
- Severity
- High
- The publisher's own rating, not a CVSS score
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-fmx4-26r3-wxpf. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
CommonMarker versions prior to 0.23.4 are at risk of an integer overflow vulnerability. This vulnerability can result in possibly unauthenticated remote attackers to cause heap memory corruption, potentially leading to an information leak or remote code execution, via parsing tables with marker rows that contain more than UINT16_MAX columns.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| commonmarker | all versions |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
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
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Withdrawn
- Last updated by the source
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7vh7-fw88-wj87 Several quadratic complexity bugs may lead to denial of service in Commonmarker | Medium | Also affects commonmarker |
| GHSA-48wp-p9qv-4j64 Commonmarker vulnerable to to several quadratic complexity bugs that may lead to denial of service | Medium | Also affects commonmarker |
| GHSA-636f-xm5j-pj9m Several quadratic complexity bugs may lead to denial of service in Commonmarker | Medium | Also affects commonmarker |
| GHSA-4qw4-jpp4-8gvp Unbounded resource exhaustion in cmark-gfm autolink extension may lead to denial of service | Medium | Also affects commonmarker |
| GHSA-fmx4-26r3-wxpf Integer overflow in cmark-gfm table parsing extension leads to heap memory corruption | Critical | Also affects commonmarker |
| 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 |
| GHSA-f63g-mx39-3r38 Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-85363 - .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | High | 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