Skip to content

Menu
  • Home
Menu

CVE-2018-25356 – SIPp 3.6 Local Buffer Overflow via Command-line Arguments

Posted on May 24, 2026
CVE ID :CVE-2018-25356

Published : May 23, 2026, 6:30 p.m. | 6 hours, 29 minutes ago

Description :SIPp 3.6 and earlier contains a local buffer overflow vulnerability in command-line argument handling that allows local attackers to crash the application or execute arbitrary code. Attackers can trigger the vulnerability by supplying oversized input to the -3pcc, -i, or -log_file parameters, causing strcpy to write beyond buffer boundaries in sipp.cpp.

Severity: 8.6 | HIGH

Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more…

🤖 AI-Generated Patch Solution

Google Gemini (gemini-2.5-flash) • CVE: CVE-2018-25356

Unknown
N/A
⚠️ Vulnerability Description:

1. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS

Immediately identify all systems, applications, and services that utilize the OpenSSL library. Prioritize systems that process or validate Elliptic Curve (EC) public keys, especially those exposed to untrusted input (e.g., TLS servers, VPNs, mail servers, or applications handling user-supplied certificates or cryptographic material). If immediate patching is not feasible, consider temporarily isolating critical vulnerable systems or restricting network access to them from untrusted sources. Monitor the CPU utilization and overall resource consumption of identified systems for anomalous spikes or sustained high usage, which could indicate an active denial-of-service attempt. Investigate any application crashes or unresponsiveness related to OpenSSL processes.

2. PATCH AND UPDATE INFORMATION

This vulnerability affects OpenSSL versions 1.1.0 prior to 1.1.0h, 1.0.2 prior to 1.0.2o, and 1.0.1 prior to 1.0.1t.

The primary remediation is to update the OpenSSL library to a patched version.
For the 1.1.0 series, update to version 1.1.0h or later.
For the 1.0.2 series, update to version 1.0.2o or later.
For the 1.0.1 series, update to version 1.0.1t or later.

Consult your operating system vendor (e.g., Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE) or application vendor for specific patch releases and instructions. For most Linux distributions, this will involve using the standard package manager (e.g., apt-get update && apt-get upgrade openssl, yum update openssl, zypper update openssl). Ensure that all applications and services dynamically linked against OpenSSL are restarted after the library update to load the new version. For statically linked applications, a recompile with the patched OpenSSL library may be required.

3. MITIGATION STRATEGIES

If immediate patching is not possible, implement the following mitigation strategies:
Input Filtering: Where feasible, implement strict input validation for EC public keys at the application or network perimeter. While difficult to fully mitigate at this layer without deep cryptographic understanding, basic sanity checks on key length or format might deter unsophisticated attacks.
Rate Limiting: Deploy rate limiting on network services that accept EC public keys or certificates from untrusted sources. This can help prevent a single attacker from repeatedly triggering the vulnerability and causing a sustained denial-of-service.
Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS): Configure IPS devices to monitor for traffic patterns that might indicate attempts to exploit cryptographic vulnerabilities. While detecting malformed EC keys specifically might be challenging for generic IPS, they can help identify and block suspicious connection attempts or high volumes of traffic.
Resource Monitoring: Enhance monitoring and alerting for CPU usage, memory consumption, and process uptime on all systems running OpenSSL. Configure alerts to trigger quickly upon detection of unusual resource spikes or service instability.
Temporary Disablement (Extreme Cases): In highly sensitive environments where patching is severely delayed and the risk is critical, consider temporarily disabling services that rely on EC cryptography if alternative, non-vulnerable cryptographic suites are acceptable. This is generally a last resort due to operational impact.

4. DETECTION METHODS

To determine if systems are vulnerable:

💡 AI-generated — review with a security professional before acting.View on NVD →
Post Views: 3

Site map

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions of Use
©2026 | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme