CVE-2020-14310
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
A flaw was found in grub2. An expected font value is not verified before proceeding with buffer allocations allowing an attacker to use a malicious font file to create an arithmetic overflow, zero-sized allocation, and further heap-based buffer overflow. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity and system availability.
Additional information
- Bugzilla 1852030: grub2: Integer overflow read_section_as_string may lead to heap-based buffer overflow
- CWE-190->CWE-122: Integer Overflow or Wraparound leads to Heap-based Buffer Overflow
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2020-14310
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
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).
| Red Hat | NVD | |
|---|---|---|
CVSS v3 Base Score | 5.7 | 6 |
Attack Vector | Local | Local |
Attack Complexity | High | Low |
Privileges Required | High | High |
User Interaction | None | None |
Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged |
Confidentiality Impact | None | None |
Integrity Impact | High | High |
Availability Impact | High | High |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory); DoS: Instability
This weakness can generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. When the calculated result is used for resource allocation, this weakness can cause too many (or too few) resources to be allocated, possibly enabling crashes if the product requests more resources than can be provided.
Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Memory
If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the overflow/wraparound results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur.
Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism
This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows, which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of the product's implicit security policy.
Availability,Other
Technical Impact: Alter Execution Logic; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
If the overflow/wraparound occurs in a loop index variable, this could cause the loop to terminate at the wrong time - too early, too late, or not at all (i.e., infinite loops). With too many iterations, some loops could consume too many resources such as memory, file handles, etc., possibly leading to a crash or other DoS.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
If integer values are used in security-critical decisions, such as calculating quotas or allocation limits, integer overflows can be used to cause an incorrect security decision.
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Modify Memory
Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. Besides important user data, heap-based overflows can be used to overwrite function pointers that may be living in memory, pointing it to the attacker's code. Even in applications that do not explicitly use function pointers, the run-time will usually leave many in memory. For example, object methods in C++ are generally implemented using function pointers. Even in C programs, there is often a global offset table used by the underlying runtime.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control,Other
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Other
When the consequence is arbitrary code execution, this can often be used to subvert any other security service.
Acknowledgements
Red Hat would like to thank Chris Coulson (Ubuntu Security Team) for reporting this issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
