Bug 750533 (CVE-2012-2739) - CVE-2012-2739 java: hash table collisions CPU usage DoS (oCERT-2011-003)
Summary: CVE-2012-2739 java: hash table collisions CPU usage DoS (oCERT-2011-003)
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: CVE-2012-2739
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: impact=moderate,public=20111228,repor...
Keywords: Reopened, Security
Depends On:
Blocks: hashdos, oCERT-2011-003 750536
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-11-01 14:13 UTC by Jan Lieskovsky
Modified: 2019-06-08 18:57 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2018-02-09 16:57:30 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jan Lieskovsky 2011-11-01 14:13:47 UTC
Julian Wälde and Alexander Klink reported that the String.hashCode() hash function is not sufficiently collision resistant.  hashCode() value is used in the implementations of HashMap and Hashtable classes:

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Hashtable.html

A specially-crafted set of keys could trigger hash function collisions, which can degrade performance of HashMap or Hashtable by changing hash table operations complexity from an expected/average O(1) to the worst case O(n).  Reporters were able to find colliding strings efficiently using equivalent substrings and meet in the middle techniques.

This problem can be used to start a denial of service attack against Java applications that use untrusted inputs as HashMap or Hashtable keys.  An example of such application is web application server (such as tomcat, see bug #750521) that may fill hash tables with data from HTTP request (such as GET or POST parameters).  A remote attack could use that to make JVM use excessive amount of CPU time by sending a POST request with large amount of parameters which hash to the same value.

This problem is similar to the issue that was previously reported for and fixed
in e.g. perl:
  http://www.cs.rice.edu/~scrosby/hash/CrosbyWallach_UsenixSec2003.pdf

Comment 2 Jan Lieskovsky 2011-11-01 14:18:44 UTC
Acknowledgements:

Red Hat would like to thank oCERT for reporting this issue. oCERT acknowledges Julian Wälde and Alexander Klink as the original reporters.

Comment 12 Tomas Hoger 2011-12-29 12:40:08 UTC
Upstream does not believe this issue should be addressed in Java language itself, and rather needs to be addressed in affected applications.  28C3 slides quote following Oracle Security Team statement:

  As for Java itself, it does not seem like there is anything that would
  require a change in Java hashmap implementation.

Hence there's currently no plan to address this issue in Java JREs.  The issue is going to be addressed in application servers such as Tomcat and JBossWeb (bug #750521), and Glassfish (Oracle bug S0104869).

Comment 15 Tomas Hoger 2012-05-24 08:06:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> Upstream does not believe this issue should be addressed in Java language
> itself, and rather needs to be addressed in affected applications.  28C3
> slides quote following Oracle Security Team statement:
> 
>   As for Java itself, it does not seem like there is anything that would
>   require a change in Java hashmap implementation.
> 
> Hence there's currently no plan to address this issue in Java JREs.

It seems there is actually going to be a fix for this in Java 7 and Java 8:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-May/010238.html

Comment 16 David Jorm 2012-06-18 05:07:03 UTC
Statement:

This flaw affects various versions of Java as shipped with Red Hat products. A patch is available for Java 7 and Java 8, but not for previous versions of Java shipped with Red Hat products. Although no patch is available for previous versions of Java as shipped with Red Hat products, the impact of this flaw has been addressed in several components that utilize Java HashMap in such a way that may expose a denial of service flaw.

Comment 17 Jan Lieskovsky 2012-06-18 12:41:36 UTC
Other related reference:
http://armoredbarista.blogspot.de/2012/02/investigating-hashdos-issue.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.