GHSA-3288-p39f-rqpv
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The asm! block enabled by the off-by-default asm feature, when enabled on ARMv8 targets, misspecified the operand
type for all of its operands, using in for pointers and values which were subsequently mutated by operations performed
within the assembly block.
Impact
It's unclear what practical impact, if any, this actually had. Incorrect operand types are technically undefined behavior, however changing them had no actual impact on the generated assembly for these targets. The possibility still exists that it may lead to potential memory safety or other issues on hypothetical future versions of rustc.
Mitigation
The operand types were changed from in to inout, and the impacted versions of the keccak crate were yanked.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
0.5low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| keccak | cargo | - | - | <0.1.6 | 0.1.6 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker's path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: The attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.