Buffer Over-read in hpjansson/chafa
Reported on
Apr 29th 2022
Description
Buffer Over-read in hpjansson/chafa at xwd-loader.c:185
Build
export CFLAGS="-g -O0 -lpthread -fsanitize=address"
export CXXFLAGS="-g -O0 -lpthread -fsanitize=address"
export LDFLAGS="-fsanitize=address"
./autogen.sh
./configure --disable-shared
make
POC
./tools/chafa/chafa ./poc.png
Asan
=================================================================
==599666==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fffffffd284 at pc 0x0000004ec1cf bp 0x7fffffffd1f0 sp 0x7fffffffd1e8
READ of size 4 at 0x7fffffffd284 thread T0
#0 0x4ec1ce in load_header /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/xwd-loader.c:185:19
#1 0x4eac61 in xwd_loader_new_from_mapping /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/xwd-loader.c:250:10
#2 0x4e835b in media_loader_new /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/media-loader.c:213:30
#3 0x4d956a in run_generic /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/chafa.c:1632:20
#4 0x4d8e1c in run /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/chafa.c:1790:12
#5 0x4cf5ba in run_all /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/chafa.c:1847:25
#6 0x4cc8ef in main /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/chafa.c:1891:11
#7 0x7ffff67ab0b2 in __libc_start_main /build/glibc-sMfBJT/glibc-2.31/csu/../csu/libc-start.c:308:16
#8 0x42036d in _start (/home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/chafa+0x42036d)
Address 0x7fffffffd284 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 132 in frame
#0 0x4eb11f in load_header /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/xwd-loader.c:171
This frame has 1 object(s):
[32, 132) 'in' (line 173) <== Memory access at offset 132 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack unwind mechanism, swapcontext or vfork
(longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow /home/fuzz/fuzz/chafa/tools/chafa/xwd-loader.c:185:19 in load_header
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
0x10007fff7a00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a30: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a40: f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x10007fff7a50:[04]f3 f3 f3 f3 f3 f3 f3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a60: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7a90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x10007fff7aa0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
Addressable: 00
Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Heap left redzone: fa
Freed heap region: fd
Stack left redzone: f1
Stack mid redzone: f2
Stack right redzone: f3
Stack after return: f5
Stack use after scope: f8
Global redzone: f9
Global init order: f6
Poisoned by user: f7
Container overflow: fc
Array cookie: ac
Intra object redzone: bb
ASan internal: fe
Left alloca redzone: ca
Right alloca redzone: cb
Shadow gap: cc
==599666==ABORTING
Impact
This vulnerability is capable of causing a denial of service (crash).
Occurrences
SECURITY.md
exists
2 years ago
Good find, thanks. Despite GLib's convention of macro identifiers being uppercase, g_ntohl() is actually a macro. It has multiple implementations, of which one is selected based on the compilation environment: If OPTIMIZE is defined and the target is i386 or x86_64, an optimized version is used that evaluates its argument only once. Otherwise a generic implementation is used that evaluates the argument several times, causing the pointer to be incremented repeatedly.
This bug will manifest in unoptimized builds and on non-x86 platforms.
I'll have a fix shortly.
@admin can we get a CVE for this? This project is distributed as packages in major linux distros - Debian and such.
We sure can - I just require the permission of the maintainer to assign and publish a CVE.
@hpjansson - are you happy for me to assign and publish a CVE for this report?