CVE-2025-9341
09h09 +00:00
Deskripsi CVE
Garbage collection can delay for AES CBC Native support, resulting in heap exhaustion
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: 2.1.0; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.Informasi CVE
Kelemahan Terkait
| Nama Kelemahan | Sumber | |
|---|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Resource Consumption The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource. |
Metrik
| Metrik | Skor | Tingkat keparahan | CVSS Vektor | Sumber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 5.9 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/S:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Informasi lebih lanjut
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (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). Attack Complexity This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. Low The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system. Attack Requirements This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. Present 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). Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None 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. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. None 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 Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Sub Confidentiality Impact Negligible There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Integrity Impact None There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Availability Impact None There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Threat MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure. Supplemental MetricsSupplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer. Automatable The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes. No Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. Recovery Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed. User The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed. Safety Like all Supplemental Metrics, providing a value for Safety is completely optional. Suppliers and vendors (AKA: scoring providers) may or may not provide Safety as a Supplemental Metric as they see fit. Present Consequences of the vulnerability meet definition of IEC 61508 consequence categories of 'marginal', 'critical', or 'catastrophic'. Value Density Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated: Concentrated The vulnerable system is rich in resources. Heuristically, such systems are often the direct responsibility of “system operators” rather than users. An example of Concentrated (think: broad) Value Density would be an attack on a central email server. Vulnerability Response Effort The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure. Moderate The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update. Provider Urgency Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories. Amber Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency. |
