ghsa-x2hm-ghg4-c67m
Vulnerability from github
Published
2023-02-28 21:30
Modified
2023-03-10 06:30
Severity ?
Details
GNU libmicrohttpd before 0.9.76 allows remote DoS (Denial of Service) due to improper parsing of a multipart/form-data boundary in the postprocessor.c MHD_create_post_processor() method. This allows an attacker to remotely send a malicious HTTP POST packet that includes one or more '\0' bytes in a multipart/form-data boundary field, which - assuming a specific heap layout - will result in an out-of-bounds read and a crash in the find_boundary() function.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2023-27371" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-125" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2023-02-28T20:15:00Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "GNU libmicrohttpd before 0.9.76 allows remote DoS (Denial of Service) due to improper parsing of a multipart/form-data boundary in the postprocessor.c MHD_create_post_processor() method. This allows an attacker to remotely send a malicious HTTP POST packet that includes one or more \u0027\\0\u0027 bytes in a multipart/form-data boundary field, which - assuming a specific heap layout - will result in an out-of-bounds read and a crash in the find_boundary() function.", "id": "GHSA-x2hm-ghg4-c67m", "modified": "2023-03-10T06:30:21Z", "published": "2023-02-28T21:30:16Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27371" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://git.gnunet.org/libmicrohttpd.git/commit/?id=6d6846e20bfdf4b3eb1b592c97520a532f724238" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/0xhebi/CVEs/tree/main/GNU%20Libmicrohttpd" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/03/msg00029.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libmicrohttpd/2023-02/msg00000.html" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ] }
Loading...
Loading...
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.