I don’t think memory leaks could ever amount to a security vulnerability, but it just feels yucky. I guess I shouldn’t cast stones, I write C++ at work.
I don’t think memory leaks could ever amount to a security vulnerability
In theory it could, after all there are technically denial-of-service vulnerabilities (not DoS/DDoS attacks, that is something different) according to CVE Numbering Athorities.
According to the CVE Numbering Athorities, there can be vulnerabilities that result in service being denied, and they refer to them as a denial-of-service vulnerability. For example, there can be a bug in a program that causes it to crash if you perform a certain set of steps/actions, thus resulting in the service being denied. Whereas traditionally, a DoS/DDoS attack is simply flooding a target with more bandwidth than they have available downstream bandwidth. Sending massive amounts of data to overwhelm a service is not the same thing as finding a unique set of actions to cause the program to crash.
So in theory, yes, a memory leak could amount to and result in a security vulnerability, like if the memory leak is reproducible and so severe it causes a service to crash.
Aha, I didn’t realize compromising availability was sufficient for the CVE definition of security vulnerability. Projects I’ve worked on have typically excluded availability, though that may not be the norm.
And I see your point about some exploits being highly asymmetric in the attacker’s favor, compared to classic [D]DoS.
I had to look it up to check my memory. Yup! https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2015/06/05/how-gitlab-uses-unicorn-and-unicorn-worker-killer/
I don’t think memory leaks could ever amount to a security vulnerability, but it just feels yucky. I guess I shouldn’t cast stones, I write C++ at work.
In theory it could, after all there are technically denial-of-service vulnerabilities (not DoS/DDoS attacks, that is something different) according to CVE Numbering Athorities.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but DoS is exactly the same thing as “denial of service”.
My point is that memory leaks can only degrade availability; they are categorically distinct from security vulnerabilities.
I think you might be misunderstanding me.
According to the CVE Numbering Athorities, there can be vulnerabilities that result in service being denied, and they refer to them as a denial-of-service vulnerability. For example, there can be a bug in a program that causes it to crash if you perform a certain set of steps/actions, thus resulting in the service being denied. Whereas traditionally, a DoS/DDoS attack is simply flooding a target with more bandwidth than they have available downstream bandwidth. Sending massive amounts of data to overwhelm a service is not the same thing as finding a unique set of actions to cause the program to crash.
So in theory, yes, a memory leak could amount to and result in a security vulnerability, like if the memory leak is reproducible and so severe it causes a service to crash.
Aha, I didn’t realize compromising availability was sufficient for the CVE definition of security vulnerability. Projects I’ve worked on have typically excluded availability, though that may not be the norm.
And I see your point about some exploits being highly asymmetric in the attacker’s favor, compared to classic [D]DoS.