GHSA-jp4j-47f9-2vc3 CVE-2019-13126 GO-2022-0852
Integer Overflow or Wraparound in NATS Server
High
Go
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.77%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 78.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- Fix
2.2.0- Upgrade github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2 to this version or later
Description
An integer overflow in NATS Server before 2.2.0 allows a remote attacker to crash the server by sending a crafted request.
Specific Go Packages Affected
github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2/server
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/nats-io/nats-server | all versions |
No fix yet |
| github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2 | < 2.2.0 |
2.2.0 |
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/nats-io/nats-server/v2 Go → 2.2.0
- go
go get github.com/nats-io/nats-server/v2@v2.2.0 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- 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
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-pq2q-rcw4-3hr6 NATS: Pre-auth remote server crash via WebSocket frame length overflow in wsRead | High | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-3f24-pcvm-5jqc NATS has mTLS verify_and_map authentication bypass via incorrect Subject DN matching | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-55h8-8g96-x4hj NATS: Leafnode connections allow spoofing of Nats-Request-Info identity headers | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-pwx7-fx9r-hr4h NATS Server: Incomplete Stripping of Nats-Request-Info Header Allows Identity Spoofing | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-9983-vrx2-fg9c NATS JetStream has an authorization bypass through its Management API | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-8r68-gvr4-jh7j NATS is vulnerable to pre-auth DoS through WebSockets client service | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-vprv-35vv-q339 NATS has pre-auth server panic via leafnode handling | High | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| GHSA-jxxm-27vp-c3m5 NATS allows MQTT clients to bypass ACL checks | Medium | Also affects github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
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