CVE-2020-15211

Out of bounds access in tensorflow-lite

MEDIUM
4.8
CVSS Score
Published: September 25, 2020 at 06:45 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 02:56 AM UTC
3 products affected across 3 vendorsLeapTensorflowTensorFlow

Using tensorflow by tensorflow?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect tensorflow - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM4.8
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.9%

Description

In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices for the tensors, indexing into an array of tensors that is owned by the subgraph. This results in a pattern of double array indexing when trying to get the data of each tensor. However, some operators can have some tensors be optional. To handle this scenario, the flatbuffer model uses a negative `-1` value as index for these tensors. This results in special casing during validation at model loading time. Unfortunately, this means that the `-1` index is a valid tensor index for any operator, including those that don't expect optional inputs and including for output tensors. Thus, this allows writing and reading from outside the bounds of heap allocated arrays, although only at a specific offset from the start of these arrays. This results in both read and write gadgets, albeit very limited in scope. The issue is patched in several commits (46d5b0852, 00302787b7, e11f5558, cd31fd0ce, 1970c21, and fff2c83), and is released in TensorFlow versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1, or 2.3.1. A potential workaround would be to add a custom `Verifier` to the model loading code to ensure that only operators which accept optional inputs use the `-1` special value and only for the tensors that they expect to be optional. Since this allow-list type approach is erro-prone, we advise upgrading to the patched code.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 1.15.42.0.0 ≤ v < 2.0.32.1.0 ≤ v < 2.1.22.2.0 ≤ v < 2.2.12.3.0 ≤ v < 2.3.1
Affected range stops below 1.15.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.1.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.2.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.3.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 1.15.4v < 2.0.3v < 2.1.2v < 2.2.1v < 2.3.1
Affected range stops below 1.15.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.0.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.1.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.2.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.3.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

CVSS

4.8MEDIUMGitHub_M
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
LOW
Integrity
LOW
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-125CWE-787

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card