CVE-2019-11043
Memory Safety in Canonical Ubuntu Linux 12.04 … 19.10
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2019-11043 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Canonical Ubuntu Linux. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 0.1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability is a buffer overflow condition, tracked as CWE-120 and CWE-787, that affects the PHP FastCGI Process Manager (FPM) component in versions 7.1.x prior to 7.1.33, 7.2.x prior to 7.2.24, and 7.3.x prior to 7.3.11. In specific FPM configurations, the module can write beyond allocated buffers into memory reserved for FCGI protocol data, creating conditions that enable remote code execution. The issue received a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.7.
Remote attackers without authentication can trigger the flaw over the network when the vulnerable FPM setup is reachable, achieving code execution that impacts confidentiality and integrity with a scope change, although successful exploitation requires high attack complexity.
Vendor advisories and errata from Red Hat, openSUSE, and other distributions address the issue through updated PHP packages that correct the buffer handling in FPM; organizations are advised to apply the corresponding fixes for the affected versions. Public exploit code demonstrating the remote code execution path has been published.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2019-2751
Vulnerability Data
In PHP versions 7.1.x below 7.1.33, 7.2.x below 7.2.24 and 7.3.x below 7.3.11 in certain configurations of FPM setup it is possible to cause FPM module to write past allocated buffers into the space reserved for FCGI protocol data, thus…
more
opening the possibility of remote code execution.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 25 March 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Platform-independent managed code eliminates the need for unchecked native buffer copies that are the root cause of classic buffer overflows.
Out-of-bounds writes that corrupt control flow or inject shellcode are rendered non-executable by the same memory protections.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.