cve.bz

CAPEC-14

Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow

High severityMedium likelihoodDetailed pattern

This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.

On this page

Ask an AI about this attack pattern

ChatGPTClaudeGoogle AI Mode

Show the promptExplain the attack pattern CAPEC-14: Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow: how it unfolds, what it needs and how to prevent and detect it in my systems. Use https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/14.html and https://cve.bz/cve/capec/14?via=ask-ai-copy, which lists recent CVEs with the weaknesses it exploits. Cite the sources.

Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this attack pattern's id and public links.

How the attack unfolds

  1. Explore

    The attacker looks for a way in.

    1. [Identify target client-side application] The adversary identifies a target client-side application to perform the buffer overflow on. The most common are browsers. If there is a known browser vulnerability an adversary could target that.

  2. Experiment

    They probe what they found.

    1. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer.

      2 techniques
      • Many times client side applications will be open source, so an adversary can examine the source code to identify possible injection vectors.
      • Examine APIs of the client-side application and look for areas where a buffer overflow might be possible.

    2. [Create hostile service] The adversary creates a hostile service that will deliver content to the client-side application. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing.

      3 techniques
      • If the client-side application is a browser, the adversary will create a service that delivers a malicious webpage to the browser.
      • Create malicious shellcode that will execute when the program execution is returned to it.
      • Use a NOP-sled in the overflow content to more easily "slide" into the malicious code. This is done so that the exact return address need not be correct, only in the range of all of the NOPs

  3. Exploit

    They carry out the attack.

    1. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary delivers the content to the client-side application using the hostile service and overflows the buffer.

      2 techniques
      • If the adversary is targeting a local client-side application, they just need to use the service themselves.
      • If the adversary is attempting to cause an overflow on an external user's client-side application, they must get the user to attach to their service by some other means. This could be getting a user to visit their hostile webpage to target a user's browser.

Prerequisites

  • The targeted client software communicates with an external server.

  • The targeted client software has a buffer overflow vulnerability.

Skills required

  • Low skill

    To achieve a denial of service, an attacker can simply overflow a buffer by inserting a long string into an attacker-modifiable injection vector.

  • High skill

    Exploiting a buffer overflow to inject malicious code into the stack of a software system or even the heap requires a more in-depth knowledge and higher skill level.

Signs of an attack

  • An example of indicator is when the client software crashes after executing code downloaded from a hostile server.

Consequences

What a successful attack can lead to
ImpactAffectsNote
Read DataConfidentiality
Modify DataIntegrity
Resource ConsumptionAvailabilityDenial of Service
Execute Unauthorized CommandsConfidentiality, Integrity, AvailabilityRun Arbitrary Code

Mitigations

  • The client software should not install untrusted code from a non-authenticated server.

  • The client software should have the latest patches and should be audited for vulnerabilities before being used to communicate with potentially hostile servers.

  • Perform input validation for length of buffer inputs.

  • Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.

  • Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.

  • Compiler-based canary mechanisms such as StackGuard, ProPolice and the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag. Unless this provides automatic bounds checking, it is not a complete solution.

  • Ensure all buffer uses are consistently bounds-checked.

  • Use OS-level preventative functionality. Not a complete solution.

Weaknesses it exploits

  • CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
  • CWE-74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component
  • CWE-118 Incorrect Access of Indexable Resource
  • CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
  • CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
  • CWE-353 Missing Support for Integrity Check
  • CWE-680 Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow
  • CWE-697 Incorrect Comparison

Recent CVEs with these weaknesses

  1. 9.6CVE-2026-108186

    Improper Input Validation in Zoom Workplace for Windows may allow an unauthenticated user to conduct an escalation of privilege via network access.

  2. 4.9CVE-2026-105427

    Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to permanently disable all Apache HTTPS services resulting in denial of service.

  3. 6.7CVE-2026-105426

    Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to set arbitrary Linux kernel parameters as root.

  4. 4.3CVE-2026-123178

    An insufficient input validation vulnerability in the listed NETGEAR Orbi Models router allows an authenticated administrator connected to the local network to execute unauthorized commands and modify the router’s software and functionalit…

  5. 8.8CVE-2026-124948

    Incorrect boundary conditions, use-after-free in the Graphics component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

  6. 8.8CVE-2026-124947

    Incorrect boundary conditions in the Graphics component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160.

  7. 8.8CVE-2026-124926

    Incorrect boundary conditions in the WebRTC component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

  8. 8.8CVE-2026-124924

    Incorrect boundary conditions in the Graphics: WebRender component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 160 and Firefox ESR 153.7.

The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.

Part of

Examples

Authors often use <EMBED> tags in HTML documents. For example

Authors often use <EMBED> tags in HTML documents. For example

<EMBED TYPE="audio/midi" SRC="/path/file.mid" AUTOSTART="true">

In Internet Explorer 4.0 an adversary attacker supplies an overly long path in the SRC= directive, the mshtml.dll component will suffer a buffer overflow. This is a standard example of content in a Web page being directed to exploit a faulty module in the system. There are potentially thousands of different ways data can propagate into a given system, thus these kinds of attacks will continue to be found in the wild.

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-14 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.