CVE-2005-2970

CVE: CVE-2005-2970
CWE: 404
ipc:
  note: 
  answer: 
  question: |
    Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
    communication? IPC includes OS signals, pipes, stdin/stdout, message
    passing, and clipboard. Writing to files that another program in this
    software system reads is another form of IPC.

    Answer should be boolean. Explain your answer
bugs: []
i18n:
  note: 
  answer: 
  instructions: |
    Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
    (i18n)? An internationalization feature is one that enables people from all
    over the world to use the system. This includes translations, locales,
    typography, unicode, or various other features.

    Answer should be boolean. Write a note about how you came to the conclusions
    you did.
repo: https://github.com/apache/httpd
vccs:
- note: Formerly d15ed5eaa05df949b515dbb202d2b717b158ad8a before HTTPD rewrote Git
    history.
  commit: 481bad782cf07405dbafca474da21be6efcd6d73
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: |-
    Added code to fix memory leak by better handling of recycled_pool

    Formerly 6a28069cef904802aeb334adce5e210a7379194c before HTTPD rewrote Git history.
  commit: a7559098045a7ceacf8c2c56645b2fb43764fb48
- note: |-
    Commit to merge commit 6a28069cef904802aeb334adce5e210a7379194c from trunk to new tree

    Formerly 0003f00957bed1e6efac102900833cdd80f8f760 before HTTPD rewrote Git history.
  commit: 6e78bad8649571f4b16c84ef5c6fb274ab76dbba
- note: |-
    Provides a cleaner solution to the initial solution established in commit 6a28069cef904802aeb334adce5e210a7379194c

    Formerly 3e41c06c333663a92bcc8ebf04ed6c92ce41395d before HTTPD rewrote Git history.
  commit: ee3ff1a4a087f2019d647aa348f0207d1dbe0a7c
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?

    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.

    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.

    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews: []
upvotes: 3
CWE_note: 
mistakes:
  answer: "A lack of tests seems to be a mistake that may not have led to the vulnerability
    but more of something \nthat led to the vulnerability being found later than it
    could have. They mention in their tests README \nthat their tests only cover \"various
    bits\" of Apache HTTPD so what they have in the repo is not the most \nextensive.
    Perhaps they have exclusive tests that have not been publicized."
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?

    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?

    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: 
reported: 
announced: 2005-10-25T17:06Z
published: 
subsystem:
  name: worker
  answer: Looking at the GitHub repo and the path of the source code files.
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?

    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged.
discovered:
  date: 
  answer: No evidence found
  google: 
  contest: 
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?

    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.

    The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    The "google" flag can be true, false, or nil.

    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you may
    leave this part blank.
  automated: 
description: "What makes the Apache HTTP Server widely used is its robustness and
  ability to support a plethora of \nvarious platforms and environments. It facilitates
  this with the use of Multi-Process Modules (aka \nMPMs) MPMs are responsible for
  binding to network ports, taking in requests, and releasing children \nto handle
  these requests. Webmasters can choose which MPMs to load onto their server depending
  on \ntheir platform and environment.\n\nThis CVE pertains to the \"worker\" MPM.
  The \"worker\" MPM supports a multi-process and multi-threaded \nserver. It is capable
  of handling a multitude of requests and can keep multiple processes open with \neach
  process possessing multiple threads. Failure to properly close processes leads to
  memory that \nis not released when it is no longer needed. Attackers can remotely
  take advantage of this by constantly \naborting connections without closing them.
  This causes memory depletion and eventually, there is \nno longer any memory available
  to be reused for future connections, rendering denial of service.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: "I was unable to find any tests associated with this vulnerability. There
    seem to be tests \nto check multithreading capabilities and establishing a transaction
    pool but there are no tests to check \nreusing the pools.\n"
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?

    For the "code" answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix and determine if and was there were unit tests involved
    for this module.

    For the "fix" answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
specification:
  answer: 
  answer_note: 
  instructions: |
    Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example,
    an RFC specification, a protocol specification, or a requirements
    specification.

    Be sure to check all artifacts for this: bug report, security
    advisory, commit message, etc.

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
curation_level: 1
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE entry
  that describes your vulnerability. (Tip: this may not be a good one to start
  with - spend time understanding this vulnerability before making your choice!)
autodiscoverable:
  answer: 
  answer_note: 
  instructions: |
    Is it plausible that a fully automated tool could have discovered
    this? These are tools that require little knowledge of the domain,
     e.g. automatic static analysis, compiler warnings, fuzzers.

    Examples for true answers: SQL injection, XSS, buffer overflow

    Examples for false: RFC violations, permissions issues, anything
    that requires the tool to be "aware" of the project's
    domain-specific requirements.

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
yaml_instructions: 
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  commits:
  - note: "This commit shows that they are consistently (at least at the time) checking
      for issues relating \n\nto ending processes properly and making sure the memory
      used to store these processes can be used again. \n\nThis makes me think that
      they encountered this vulnerability by chance. Perhaps if there was some sort
      of \n\nautomated test, it could have been found sooner.\n\n\nFormerly d8f3229c741ac1fefcba64e068398533687195e8
      before HTTPD rewrote Git history."
    commit: 592750b026b9a5d3a7f401796ec1763ca2b79984
  - note: 
    commit: 
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?

    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it. Set the
  entry below to "true" as soon as you start. This will enable additional
  integrity checks on this file to make sure you fill everything out properly.
  If you are a student, we cannot accept your work as finished unless curated is
  set to true.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.

  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it. If the
  report mentions a nickname, use that. Must be under 30 characters.
  Optional.
reported_instructions: 
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below (see my example in
  CVE-2011-3092.yml). Fixes and VCCs follow the same format.
published_instructions: 
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.

  Rewrite this description in your own words. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.

  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove Chromium-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Chromium would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.