CVE-2013-2071

CVE: CVE-2013-2071
CWE: 431
bugs: []
vccs:
- note: Commit which originally introduced some narrow exception handling.
  commit: 587b1a807129c2ab41623358281aa19ff2ff9950
- note: Added too narrow error handling around the vulnerability.
  commit: 855137c63bce55c7e70d21c30fddf2a9d165d067
fixes:
- note: SVN rev 1471372, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: f505d993d47d75d762c632cef6a622928ed4bcd6
- note: SVN rev 1471371, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: 4171bafd2b38be19a6358ba75b9d71b6dbf3072b
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: 
  exception_handling:
    note: "The vulnerability was caused by behavior in the situation of an unhandled
      \nexception. In this case, the exception was not excepted which caused \nhandling
      to be too narrowly defined.\n"
    applies: true
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
upvotes: 3
mistakes:
  answer: "The mistake here was overlooking the potential for an asynchronous listener\nimplementation
    to throw a runtime exception. When the error handling was\nimplemented over the
    course of two commits, the only expected error was\nan IOException. This handling
    proved to be too narrow.\n\nFrom the discussion on the bug report, it is clear
    the implementer does not\nbelieve an asynchronous listener should ever throw a
    runtime exception. \nHowever, tomcat should protect against it in the case that
    an application\nchooses to do so.\n\nThe assumption of no runtime exceptions being
    thrown led to unexpected\nbehavior within tomcat. This behavior ultimately created
    a security\nvulnerability in the form of a leak of information.\n"
  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: '2013-04-02'
announced: '2013-05-10'
subsystem:
  name: Catalina
  answer: Based on information in the bug report.
  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.
    Examples: "clipboard", "gpu", "ssl", "speech", "renderer"
discovered:
  date: '2012-11-21'
  answer: "Discovered by a tomcat user who had an application containing an asynchronous
    \nlistener which threw a runtime exception. The user originally reported an \nindirect
    consequence of the vulnerability which resulted in preliminary\ndismissal as an
    application issue not a tomcat issue. The user later investigated\nthe source
    of the issue in tomcat and created a reproducible case.\n"
  contest: false
  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
    * If it's clear that the vulnerability was discovered by a contest,
      fill in the name there.
    * The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you
    may leave the entries blank except for "answer", BUT please write down
    where you looked in "answer".
  automated: false
description: "The vulnerability stemmed from a lack of exception handling. \n\nSome
  objects would like to be notified when an event occurs and are therefore\n\"listening\"
  for an event. In the situation where one of these listeners threw\na runtime exception,
  the web request associated with the event would not be\nproperly recycled as it
  should be. This resulted in subsequent requests having\ninformation from that previous
  request. Such information is then present \nwhere it should not be available.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    Code file changed had a file of associated unit tests. New test added related
    specifically for the bug related to the vulnerability.
  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?
    Write the reasoning behind your answer in the "answer" field.
    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. Must be just "true" or "false".
    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.
    Must be just "true" or "false".
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!)
incomplete_fixes:
- note: 
  commit: 
- note: 
  commit: 
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:
  answer: "From the original implementation of exception handling, it was believed
    \nthe only exception that should be thrown from an asynchronous listener \nwas
    an IOException. Tomcat behaved unexpectedly for users who had an\napplication
    that was throwing a runtime exception from a listener. Until\na reproducible explanation
    of the effect of this behavior was found,\nthis was considered a problem with
    the application not with tomcat.\n"
  commits:
  - note: 
    commit: 
  - 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?
    If there are no interesting commits, demonstrate that you completed this
    section by explaining what happened between the VCCs and the fix.
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: |
  Students: when initially writing this, ignore this upvotes number.
  Once this work is being reviewed, 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: |
  Nickname is optional. Provide a useful, professional, and catchy nickname for
  this vulnerability. Ideally fewer than 30 characters. This will be shown
  alongside its CVE to make it more easily distinguished from the rest.
reported_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was reported to the team? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE data.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
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 data.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the Git commit SHA in "commit" below, and any notes about how this
  was discovered in the "note" field.
  Refer to our instructions on how to find a Git SHA from an SVN revision.
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.
incomplete_fix_instructions: |
  Did the above "fixes" actually fix the vulnerability?
  Please list any fix commits for this vulnerability that had to be corrected
  at a later date.