Skip to content

Lack of size check and buffer overflow in RIOT /sys/net/application_layer/cord/lc/cord_lc.c

High
Teufelchen1 published GHSA-2572-7q7c-3965 Apr 30, 2024

Package

RIOT

Affected versions

<= 2023.10

Patched versions

None

Description

Summary

I spotted the lack of a size check that may lead to a buffer overflow in RIOT source code at:
https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/blob/master/sys/net/application_layer/cord/lc/cord_lc.c#L218

Details

The _on_rd_init() function does not implement a size check before copying data to the _result_buf static buffer. If an attacker can craft a long enough payload, they could cause a buffer overflow.

Please refer to the marked line below:

static void _on_rd_init(const gcoap_request_memo_t *memo, coap_pkt_t *pdu,
                       const sock_udp_ep_t *remote)
{
    (void)remote;

    thread_flags_t flag = FLAG_NORSC;

    if (memo->state == GCOAP_MEMO_RESP) {
        unsigned ct = coap_get_content_type(pdu);
        if (ct != COAP_FORMAT_LINK) {
            DEBUG("cord_lc: error payload not in link format: %u\n", ct);
            goto end;
        }
        if (pdu->payload_len == 0) {
            DEBUG("cord_lc: error empty payload\n");
            goto end;
        }
        memcpy(_result_buf, pdu->payload, pdu->payload_len); // VULN: lack of size check and potential buffer overflow
        _result_buf_len = pdu->payload_len;
        _result_buf[_result_buf_len] = '\0';
        flag = FLAG_SUCCESS;
    } else if (memo->state == GCOAP_MEMO_TIMEOUT) {
        flag = FLAG_TIMEOUT;
    }

end:
    if (flag != FLAG_SUCCESS) {
        _result_buf = NULL;
        _result_buf_len = 0;
    }
    thread_flags_set(_waiter, flag);
}

Note that the _on_lookup() function in the same file does implement such an explicit size check:

static void _on_lookup(const gcoap_request_memo_t *memo, coap_pkt_t *pdu,
                       const sock_udp_ep_t *remote)
{
    (void)remote;

    thread_flags_t flag = FLAG_ERR;

    if (memo->state == GCOAP_MEMO_RESP) {
        unsigned ct = coap_get_content_type(pdu);
        if (ct != COAP_FORMAT_LINK) {
            DEBUG("cord_lc: unsupported content format: %u\n", ct);
            thread_flags_set(_waiter, flag);
        }
        if (pdu->payload_len == 0) {
            flag = FLAG_NORSC;
            thread_flags_set(_waiter, flag);
        }
        if (pdu->payload_len >= _result_buf_len) { // CHECK
            flag = FLAG_OVERFLOW;
            thread_flags_set(_waiter, flag);
        }
        memcpy(_result_buf, pdu->payload, pdu->payload_len);
        memset(_result_buf + pdu->payload_len, 0,
               _result_buf_len - pdu->payload_len);
        _result_buf_len = pdu->payload_len;
        flag = FLAG_SUCCESS;
    } else if (memo->state == GCOAP_MEMO_TIMEOUT) {
        flag = FLAG_TIMEOUT;
    }

    thread_flags_set(_waiter, flag);
}

Impact

If the unchecked input above is attacker-controlled and crosses a security boundary, the impact of the buffer overflow vulnerability could range from denial of service to arbitrary code execution.

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVE ID

CVE-2024-31225

Weaknesses

Credits