CVE-2004-1915 in LCDProc
Summary
by MITRE
Buffer overflow in the parse_all_client_messages function in LCDproc 0.4.x up to 0.4.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a large number of arguments.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 12/23/2024
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2004-1915 represents a critical buffer overflow flaw within the LCDproc software suite, specifically affecting versions 0.4.x through 0.4.4. This issue resides in the parse_all_client_messages function which processes client communication data. The buffer overflow occurs when the system receives a large number of arguments from remote clients, causing memory corruption that can be exploited by malicious actors. The vulnerability demonstrates a classic security weakness where input validation fails to properly constrain the size of data being processed, creating an opportunity for attackers to overwrite adjacent memory regions. This particular flaw falls under the CWE-121 category of stack-based buffer overflow, where insufficient bounds checking allows attackers to manipulate program execution flow through carefully crafted input sequences.
The technical exploitation of this vulnerability involves sending a malformed message containing an excessive number of arguments to the LCDproc server process. When the parse_all_client_messages function attempts to process these arguments without proper size validation, it overflows the allocated buffer space and corrupts adjacent memory areas including return addresses and function pointers. This memory corruption directly enables attackers to redirect program execution to malicious code injected into the buffer space. The attack vector is particularly dangerous because it operates over network connections, allowing remote exploitation without requiring local system access. The vulnerability's impact is amplified by the fact that LCDproc is commonly used in server environments where it may be exposed to untrusted network traffic, making it a prime target for remote code execution attacks.
From an operational perspective, this vulnerability poses significant risks to systems running affected LCDproc versions, particularly those deployed in networked environments where multiple clients may connect to display server functionality. The remote code execution capability means attackers can gain full control over the affected system, potentially leading to data compromise, system takeover, or use as a launch point for further attacks within the network infrastructure. The vulnerability affects not only the immediate system but also any downstream services that may rely on the compromised LCDproc functionality. Organizations using LCDproc for display management in critical infrastructure environments face heightened risk, as the attack could disrupt services or provide unauthorized access to sensitive information. The exploitability of this vulnerability is relatively straightforward, requiring only network connectivity to the affected service and basic understanding of buffer overflow exploitation techniques.
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2004-1915 should prioritize immediate patching of affected systems with the latest available versions of LCDproc that contain the necessary security fixes. System administrators should implement network segmentation to limit exposure of LCDproc services to untrusted networks and consider disabling unnecessary client connections. Input validation should be strengthened at the application level to prevent malformed argument sequences from being processed, with proper bounds checking implemented in the parse_all_client_messages function. Network monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual patterns of argument processing that may indicate exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should consider implementing intrusion detection systems that can identify potential buffer overflow exploitation patterns and maintain updated threat intelligence regarding similar vulnerabilities in related software components. The remediation process should also include comprehensive system auditing to identify any potential compromise from prior exploitation attempts, with security hardening measures applied to reduce the attack surface of the overall system infrastructure.