An out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the streaming RPC client of Apache bRPC (versions 1.11.0 through 1.17.0) on all platforms. A client that creates multiple streams in a single RPC expects the server response to carry exactly one extra_stream_id for every additional stream. The response handling path indexed the returned identifiers using the locally created stream count without first validating the size of the returned list, so a malicious or compromised server (or an on-path attacker) can trigger an out-of-bounds read in the client by returning a malformed StreamSettings response with fewer extra_stream_ids than expected. This may crash the client process (denial of service) or leak unintended memory contents into subsequent stream handling; surplus identifiers have no valid client-stream mapping and are processed inconsistently.
Root Cause:
Since bRPC 1.11.0, a client can create multiple streams in one RPC via batch StreamCreate. The expected behavior is that the server response must return exactly (N-1) extra_stream_ids, where N is the number of locally created streams. In Controller::HandleStreamConnection, the response path reads extra_stream_ids[i-1] for each additional local stream without first comparing the returned list size with (N-1). If the server returns fewer identifiers, the read runs past the end of the returned list (out-of-bounds read); if it returns more, the surplus identifiers have no corresponding client-side stream.
Affected Scenarios:
A bRPC client using multi-stream RPC (creating more than one stream in a single RPC) that connects to an untrusted, malicious, or compromised server or to a server reached through an untrusted network path. The server sends a malformed StreamSettings response to trigger the issue.
How to Fix:
(Choose one of the following options)
- Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue.
- Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3485
Note:
The fix makes the client reject responses whose extra_stream_ids count does not exactly match the number of additional client streams. Such mismatched responses now fail the RPC with ERESPONSE and go through the existing stream cleanup path, instead of being partially processed.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 · CVSS v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it