CVE-2022-48980 : Detail

CVE-2022-48980

7.8
/
High
Overflow
0.02%V4
Local
2024-10-21
20h05 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h11 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

net: dsa: sja1105: avoid out of bounds access in sja1105_init_l2_policing()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: sja1105: avoid out of bounds access in sja1105_init_l2_policing() The SJA1105 family has 45 L2 policing table entries (SJA1105_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT) and SJA1110 has 110 (SJA1110_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT). Keeping the table structure but accounting for the difference in port count (5 in SJA1105 vs 10 in SJA1110) does not fully explain the difference. Rather, the SJA1110 also has L2 ingress policers for multicast traffic. If a packet is classified as multicast, it will be processed by the policer index 99 + SRCPORT. The sja1105_init_l2_policing() function initializes all L2 policers such that they don't interfere with normal packet reception by default. To have a common code between SJA1105 and SJA1110, the index of the multicast policer for the port is calculated because it's an index that is out of bounds for SJA1105 but in bounds for SJA1110, and a bounds check is performed. The code fails to do the proper thing when determining what to do with the multicast policer of port 0 on SJA1105 (ds->num_ports = 5). The "mcast" index will be equal to 45, which is also equal to table->ops->max_entry_count (SJA1105_MAX_L2_POLICING_COUNT). So it passes through the check. But at the same time, SJA1105 doesn't have multicast policers. So the code programs the SHARINDX field of an out-of-bounds element in the L2 Policing table of the static config. The comparison between index 45 and 45 entries should have determined the code to not access this policer index on SJA1105, since its memory wasn't even allocated. With enough bad luck, the out-of-bounds write could even overwrite other valid kernel data, but in this case, the issue was detected using KASAN. Kernel log: sja1105 spi5.0: Probed switch chip: SJA1105Q ================================================================== BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sja1105_setup+0x1cbc/0x2340 Write of size 8 at addr ffffff880bd57708 by task kworker/u8:0/8 ... Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func Call trace: ... sja1105_setup+0x1cbc/0x2340 dsa_register_switch+0x1284/0x18d0 sja1105_probe+0x748/0x840 ... Allocated by task 8: ... sja1105_setup+0x1bcc/0x2340 dsa_register_switch+0x1284/0x18d0 sja1105_probe+0x748/0x840 ...

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.14 To (excluding) 5.15.83

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.0.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

References

The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.