CVE-2020-15106

An update for etcd is now available for Red Hat OpenStack Platform 16.1 (Train). Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

An update for etcd is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extras. Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section.

Ein entfernter, anonymer, authentisierter oder lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in IBM DB2 ausnutzen, um Dateien zu manipulieren, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand auszulösen, willkürlichen Code mit erhöhten Rechten auszuführen, Informationen falsch darzustellen und beliebigen Code auszuführen.

### Vulnerability type Data Validation ### Detail In the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry. ### References Find out more on this vulnerability in the [security audit report](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/master/security/SECURITY_AUDIT.pdf) ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Contact the [etcd security committee](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/master/security/security-release-process.md)

### Vulnerability type Data Validation ### Detail The size of a record is stored in the length field of a WAL file and no additional validation is done on this data. Therefore, it is possible to forge an extremely large frame size that can unintentionally panic at the expense of any RAFT participant trying to decode the WAL. ### Specific Go Packages Affected github.com/etcd-io/etcd/wal ### References Find out more on this vulnerability in the [security audit report](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/master/security/SECURITY_AUDIT.pdf) ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Contact the [etcd security committee](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/master/security/security-release-process.md#product-security-committee-psc)

In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, a large slice causes panic in decodeRecord method. The size of a record is stored in the length field of a WAL file and no additional validation is done on this data. Therefore, it is possible to forge an extremely large frame size that can unintentionally panic at the expense of any RAFT participant trying to decode the WAL.

In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.

In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime panic when reading the entry.

Malformed WALs can be constructed such that WAL.ReadAll can cause attempted out of bounds reads, or creation of arbitrarily sized slices, which may be used as a DoS vector.