Samba: type confusion in mdssvc rpc service for spotlight
Red Hat · Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
A type confusion flaw in Samba's mdssvc RPC service for Spotlight, shipped in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, arises because callers of dalloc_value_for_key() do not check value types in the Spotlight dictionary structure. An attacker with network access can send crafted mdssvc RPC packets, requiring no authentication or user interaction, to crash a worker process that is shared among multiple client connections, disrupting service for all clients it serves.
A Type Confusion vulnerability was found in Samba's mdssvc RPC service for Spotlight. When parsing Spotlight mdssvc RPC packets, one encoded data structure is a key-value style dictionary where the keys are character strings, and the values can be any of the supported types in the mdssvc protocol. Due to a lack of type checking in callers of the dalloc_value_for_key() function, which returns the object associated with a key, a caller may trigger a crash in talloc_get_size() when talloc detects that the passed-in pointer is not a valid talloc pointer. With an RPC worker process shared among multiple client connections, a malicious client or attacker can trigger a process crash in a shared RPC mdssvc worker process, affecting all other clients this worker serves.
- Exploited
- Not confirmed
- Reports
- 0
- Tactics
- 0/15
Exploitation timelineDated milestones for a CVE: when it was disclosed, when exploit code became public, when exploitation was confirmed, and when threat reports named it.
Disclosed on 20 Jul 2023. No public exploit code or confirmed exploitation is recorded.
Patch historyEarlier and later CVEs in the same code, in date order. It shows when a fix was bypassed or incomplete and which version finally fixed it.
2 related vulnerabilities in the same code over 9 weeks.
Linked vulnerabilitiesLinked by evidence that a fix failed or the same code was patched again. Oldest first.
- This CVECVE-2023-34967Samba: type confusion in mdssvc rpc service for spotlight20 Jul 2023
relatedLow
Why these are linked: Link confidenceHow strong the evidence is that two CVEs are related. High: stated in the CVE text or linked in an advisory, or the same code was patched one release apart. Medium: the same code, or a version step plus a similar description. Low: similar description only.
- Stated in the CVE text
This issue is similar to CVE-2023-34967.
- Stated in the CVE text
MITRE ATT&CKA public catalogue of the techniques attackers use, maintained by MITRE. Patchfirst uses it to describe what attackers do with a vulnerability. techniques
No techniques linkedNo ATT&CK techniques are linked to this CVE yet. MITRE CTID has not mapped it, and no report passage in the corpus ties it to a technique.