GSD-2022-39294
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:19Details
conduit-hyper integrates a conduit application with the hyper server. Prior to version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` did not check any limit on a request's length before calling [`hyper::body::to_bytes`](https://docs.rs/hyper/latest/hyper/body/fn.to_bytes.html). An attacker could send a malicious request with an abnormally large `Content-Length`, which could lead to a panic if memory allocation failed for that request. In version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` sets an internal limit of 128 MiB per request, otherwise returning status 400 ("Bad Request"). This crate is part of the implementation of Rust's [crates.io](https://crates.io/), but that service is not affected due to its existing cloud infrastructure, which already drops such malicious requests. Even with the new limit in place, `conduit-hyper` is not recommended for production use, nor to directly serve the public Internet.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2022-39294",
"description": "conduit-hyper integrates a conduit application with the hyper server. Prior to version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` did not check any limit on a request\u0027s length before calling [`hyper::body::to_bytes`](https://docs.rs/hyper/latest/hyper/body/fn.to_bytes.html). An attacker could send a malicious request with an abnormally large `Content-Length`, which could lead to a panic if memory allocation failed for that request. In version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` sets an internal limit of 128 MiB per request, otherwise returning status 400 (\"Bad Request\"). This crate is part of the implementation of Rust\u0027s [crates.io](https://crates.io/), but that service is not affected due to its existing cloud infrastructure, which already drops such malicious requests. Even with the new limit in place, `conduit-hyper` is not recommended for production use, nor to directly serve the public Internet.",
"id": "GSD-2022-39294"
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-39294"
],
"details": "conduit-hyper integrates a conduit application with the hyper server. Prior to version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` did not check any limit on a request\u0027s length before calling [`hyper::body::to_bytes`](https://docs.rs/hyper/latest/hyper/body/fn.to_bytes.html). An attacker could send a malicious request with an abnormally large `Content-Length`, which could lead to a panic if memory allocation failed for that request. In version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` sets an internal limit of 128 MiB per request, otherwise returning status 400 (\"Bad Request\"). This crate is part of the implementation of Rust\u0027s [crates.io](https://crates.io/), but that service is not affected due to its existing cloud infrastructure, which already drops such malicious requests. Even with the new limit in place, `conduit-hyper` is not recommended for production use, nor to directly serve the public Internet.",
"id": "GSD-2022-39294",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:19:20.633592Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2022-39294",
"STATE": "PUBLIC",
"TITLE": "(DoS) Denial of Service from unchecked request length in conduit-hyper"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "conduit-hyper",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "\u003e= 0.2.0-alpha.3, \u003c 0.4.2"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "conduit-rust"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "conduit-hyper integrates a conduit application with the hyper server. Prior to version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` did not check any limit on a request\u0027s length before calling [`hyper::body::to_bytes`](https://docs.rs/hyper/latest/hyper/body/fn.to_bytes.html). An attacker could send a malicious request with an abnormally large `Content-Length`, which could lead to a panic if memory allocation failed for that request. In version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` sets an internal limit of 128 MiB per request, otherwise returning status 400 (\"Bad Request\"). This crate is part of the implementation of Rust\u0027s [crates.io](https://crates.io/), but that service is not affected due to its existing cloud infrastructure, which already drops such malicious requests. Even with the new limit in place, `conduit-hyper` is not recommended for production use, nor to directly serve the public Internet."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/conduit-rust/conduit-hyper/security/advisories/GHSA-9398-5ghf-7pr6",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://github.com/conduit-rust/conduit-hyper/security/advisories/GHSA-9398-5ghf-7pr6"
}
]
},
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-9398-5ghf-7pr6",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:conduit-hyper_project:conduit-hyper:0.2.0:-:*:*:*:rust:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:conduit-hyper_project:conduit-hyper:0.2.0:alpha3:*:*:*:rust:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:conduit-hyper_project:conduit-hyper:0.2.0:alpha4:*:*:*:rust:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:conduit-hyper_project:conduit-hyper:*:*:*:*:*:rust:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "0.4.2",
"versionStartExcluding": "0.2.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2022-39294"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "conduit-hyper integrates a conduit application with the hyper server. Prior to version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` did not check any limit on a request\u0027s length before calling [`hyper::body::to_bytes`](https://docs.rs/hyper/latest/hyper/body/fn.to_bytes.html). An attacker could send a malicious request with an abnormally large `Content-Length`, which could lead to a panic if memory allocation failed for that request. In version 0.4.2, `conduit-hyper` sets an internal limit of 128 MiB per request, otherwise returning status 400 (\"Bad Request\"). This crate is part of the implementation of Rust\u0027s [crates.io](https://crates.io/), but that service is not affected due to its existing cloud infrastructure, which already drops such malicious requests. Even with the new limit in place, `conduit-hyper` is not recommended for production use, nor to directly serve the public Internet."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-1284"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/conduit-rust/conduit-hyper/security/advisories/GHSA-9398-5ghf-7pr6",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/conduit-rust/conduit-hyper/security/advisories/GHSA-9398-5ghf-7pr6"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 3.6
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2023-07-11T20:51Z",
"publishedDate": "2022-10-31T19:15Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
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.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.