Summary
ELF header parsing library doesn't check for valid offset
The crate has several unsafe sections that don't perform proper pointer validation.
An example can be found in the following function:
fn section_header_raw(&self) -> &[ET::SectionHeader] {
let sh_off = self.elf_header().section_header_offset() as usize;
let sh_num = self.elf_header().section_header_entry_num() as usize;
unsafe {
let sh_ptr = self.content().as_ptr().add(sh_off);
from_raw_parts(sh_ptr as *const ET::SectionHeader, sh_num)
}
}
While this will work perfectly fine if the ELF header is valid, malicious or malformed input can contain a section header offset of an arbitrary size, meaning that the resultant pointer in the unsafe block can point to an artibrary address in the address space of the process.
This can result in unpredictable behaviour, and in our fuzz testing, we discovered that it's trivial to cause SIGABRT (signal 6), or SEGV (signal 11).
The function should either be marked as unsafe, with a note that the caller is responsible for providing only valid inputs, or it should ideally do the due diligence to ensure that the offset doesn't exceed the bounds of the header (and add additional checks as necessary).
Impact
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M? GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M is a medium-severity security vulnerability in elf_rs (rust), affecting versions < 0.3.0. It is fixed in 0.3.0.
- Which versions of elf_rs are affected by GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M? elf_rs (rust) versions < 0.3.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M? Yes. GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M is fixed in 0.3.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix GHSA-G6PW-999W-J75M? Upgrade
elf_rsto 0.3.0 or later.