Skip to content

Invalid validation in `QuantizeAndDequantizeV2`

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 13, 2021 in tensorflow/tensorflow • Updated Jan 29, 2023

Package

pip tensorflow (pip)

Affected versions

< 2.1.4
>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3
>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3
>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2

Patched versions

2.1.4
2.2.3
2.3.3
2.4.2
pip tensorflow-cpu (pip)
< 2.1.4
>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3
>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3
>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2
2.1.4
2.2.3
2.3.3
2.4.2
pip tensorflow-gpu (pip)
< 2.1.4
>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.3
>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3
>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.2
2.1.4
2.2.3
2.3.3
2.4.2

Description

Impact

The validation in tf.raw_ops.QuantizeAndDequantizeV2 allows invalid values for axis argument:

import tensorflow as tf

input_tensor = tf.constant([0.0], shape=[1], dtype=float)
input_min = tf.constant(-10.0)
input_max = tf.constant(-10.0)

tf.raw_ops.QuantizeAndDequantizeV2(
  input=input_tensor, input_min=input_min, input_max=input_max,
  signed_input=False, num_bits=1, range_given=False, round_mode='HALF_TO_EVEN',
  narrow_range=False, axis=-2)

The validation uses || to mix two different conditions:

OP_REQUIRES(ctx,
  (axis_ == -1 || axis_ < input.shape().dims()),
  errors::InvalidArgument(...));

If axis_ < -1 the condition in OP_REQUIRES will still be true, but this value of axis_ results in heap underflow. This allows attackers to read/write to other data on the heap.

Patches

We have patched the issue in GitHub commit c5b0d5f8ac19888e46ca14b0e27562e7fbbee9a9.

The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.5.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.4.2, TensorFlow 2.3.3, TensorFlow 2.2.3 and TensorFlow 2.1.4, as these are also affected and still in supported range.

For more information

Please consult our security guide for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.

Attribution

This vulnerability has been reported by Yakun Zhang and Ying Wang of Baidu X-Team.

References

@mihaimaruseac mihaimaruseac published to tensorflow/tensorflow May 13, 2021
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 14, 2021
Reviewed May 17, 2021
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 21, 2021
Last updated Jan 29, 2023

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

EPSS score

0.048%
(19th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2021-29610

GHSA ID

GHSA-mq5c-prh3-3f3h

Source code

No known source code
Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.