Skip to content

`CHECK`-failures in binary ops in Tensorflow

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 2, 2022 in tensorflow/tensorflow • Updated Nov 7, 2024

Package

pip tensorflow (pip)

Affected versions

< 2.5.3
>= 2.6.0, < 2.6.3
= 2.7.0

Patched versions

2.5.3
2.6.3
2.7.1
pip tensorflow-cpu (pip)
< 2.5.3
>= 2.6.0, < 2.6.3
= 2.7.0
2.5.3
2.6.3
2.7.1
pip tensorflow-gpu (pip)
< 2.5.3
>= 2.6.0, < 2.6.3
= 2.7.0
2.5.3
2.6.3
2.7.1

Description

Impact

A malicious user can cause a denial of service by altering a SavedModel such that any binary op would trigger CHECK failures. This occurs when the protobuf part corresponding to the tensor arguments is modified such that the dtype no longer matches the dtype expected by the op. In that case, calling the templated binary operator for the binary op would receive corrupted data, due to the type confusion involved:

functor::BinaryFunctor<Device, Functor, 1>()(
    eigen_device, out->template flat<Tout>(),
    input_0.template flat<Tin>(), input_1.template flat<Tin>(),
    error_ptr);

If Tin and Tout don't match the type of data in out and input_* tensors then flat<*> would interpret it wrongly. In most cases, this would be a silent failure, but we have noticed scenarios where this results in a CHECK crash, hence a denial of service.

Patches

We have patched the issue in GitHub commit a7c02f1a9bbc35473969618a09ee5f9f5d3e52d9.
The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.8.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.7.1, TensorFlow 2.6.3, and TensorFlow 2.5.3, 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.

References

@mihaimaruseac mihaimaruseac published to tensorflow/tensorflow Feb 2, 2022
Reviewed Feb 4, 2022
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 4, 2022
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 10, 2022
Last updated Nov 7, 2024

Severity

Moderate

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

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:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

0.155%
(53rd percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2022-23583

GHSA ID

GHSA-gjqc-q9g6-q2j3

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.