GHSA-4QPC-HPHM-XPMC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-09 00:00 – Updated: 2025-08-12 12:30
VLAI?
Details

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 devices (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG900 V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P V5.X (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions < V5.6.0). Within a third-party component, whenever memory allocation is requested, the out of bound size is not checked. Therefore, if size exceeding the expected allocation is assigned, it could allocate a smaller buffer instead. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could cause a heap overflow.

Severity ?
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-42018"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-122",
      "CWE-787"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-03-08T12:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 devices (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG900 V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P V5.X (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions \u003c V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions \u003c V5.6.0). Within a third-party component, whenever memory allocation is requested, the out of bound size is not checked. Therefore, if size exceeding the expected allocation is assigned, it could allocate a smaller buffer instead. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could cause a heap overflow.",
  "id": "GHSA-4qpc-hphm-xpmc",
  "modified": "2025-08-12T12:30:31Z",
  "published": "2022-03-09T00:00:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42018"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-256353.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-256353.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.