Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🦀 crates.io

GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m

ELF header parsing library doesn't check for valid offset

Also known asRUSTSEC-2022-0079
Published
Jan 20, 2023
Updated
Nov 8, 2023
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected
🦀elf_rs

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects crates.io packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

The crate has several unsafe sections that don't perform proper pointer validation.

An example can be found in the following function:

fn section_header_raw(&self) -> &[ET::SectionHeader] {
    let sh_off = self.elf_header().section_header_offset() as usize;
    let sh_num = self.elf_header().section_header_entry_num() as usize;
    unsafe {
        let sh_ptr = self.content().as_ptr().add(sh_off);
        from_raw_parts(sh_ptr as *const ET::SectionHeader, sh_num)
    }
}

While this will work perfectly fine if the ELF header is valid, malicious or malformed input can contain a section header offset of an arbitrary size, meaning that the resultant pointer in the unsafe block can point to an artibrary address in the address space of the process.

This can result in unpredictable behaviour, and in our fuzz testing, we discovered that it's trivial to cause SIGABRT (signal 6), or SEGV (signal 11).

The function should either be marked as unsafe, with a note that the caller is responsible for providing only valid inputs, or it should ideally do the due diligence to ensure that the offset doesn't exceed the bounds of the header (and add additional checks as necessary).

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🦀crates.ioelf_rsall versions0.3.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for elf_rs. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update elf_rs to 0.3.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

The crate has several unsafe sections that don't perform proper pointer validation. An example can be found in the following function: ``` fn section_header_raw(&self) -> &[ET::SectionHeader] { let sh_off = self.elf_header().section_header_offset() as usize; let sh_num = self.elf_header().section_header_entry_num() as usize; unsafe { let sh_ptr = self.content().as_ptr().add(sh_off); from_raw_parts(sh_ptr as *const ET::SectionHeader, sh_num) } } ``` While this will work perfectly fine *if* the ELF header is valid, malicious or malformed input can contain a sec
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-g6pw-999w-j75m across crates.io dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.