CVE-2009-4902
Description
From CVE.org
Buffer overflow in the MSGFunctionDemarshall function in winscard_svc.c in the PC/SC Smart Card daemon (aka PCSCD) in MUSCLE PCSC-Lite 1.5.4 and earlier might allow local users to gain privileges via crafted SCARD_CONTROL message data, which is improperly demarshalled. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2010-0407.
Statement
Not vulnerable. This issue did not affect the versions of pcsc-lite as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v2 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 6.2 | 6.8 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Local | Local | N/A |
| Access Complexity | High | Low | N/A |
| Authentication | None | Single | N/A |
| Confidentiality Impact | Complete | Complete | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | Complete | Complete | N/A |
| Availability Impact | Complete | Complete | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
NVD: AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data; Unexpected State
Attackers can modify unexpected objects or data that was assumed to be safe from modification. Deserialized data or code could be modified without using the provided accessor functions, or unexpected functions could be invoked.
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
If a function is making an assumption on when to terminate, based on a sentry in a string, it could easily never terminate.
Other
Technical Impact: Varies by Context
The consequences can vary widely, because it depends on which objects or methods are being deserialized, and how they are used. Making an assumption that the code in the deserialized object is valid is dangerous and can enable exploitation. One example is attackers using gadget chains to perform unauthorized actions, such as generating a shell.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
