CVE-2024-26588 : Detail

CVE-2024-26588

7.8
/
High
Overflow
0.02%V4
Local
2024-02-22
16h13 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h43 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

LoongArch: BPF: Prevent out-of-bounds memory access

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: BPF: Prevent out-of-bounds memory access The test_tag test triggers an unhandled page fault: # ./test_tag [ 130.640218] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffff80001b898004, era == 9000000003137f7c, ra == 9000000003139e70 [ 130.640501] Oops[#3]: [ 130.640553] CPU: 0 PID: 1326 Comm: test_tag Tainted: G D O 6.7.0-rc4-loong-devel-gb62ab1a397cf #47 61985c1d94084daa2432f771daa45b56b10d8d2a [ 130.640764] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 [ 130.640874] pc 9000000003137f7c ra 9000000003139e70 tp 9000000104cb4000 sp 9000000104cb7a40 [ 130.641001] a0 ffff80001b894000 a1 ffff80001b897ff8 a2 000000006ba210be a3 0000000000000000 [ 130.641128] a4 000000006ba210be a5 00000000000000f1 a6 00000000000000b3 a7 0000000000000000 [ 130.641256] t0 0000000000000000 t1 00000000000007f6 t2 0000000000000000 t3 9000000004091b70 [ 130.641387] t4 000000006ba210be t5 0000000000000004 t6 fffffffffffffff0 t7 90000000040913e0 [ 130.641512] t8 0000000000000005 u0 0000000000000dc0 s9 0000000000000009 s0 9000000104cb7ae0 [ 130.641641] s1 00000000000007f6 s2 0000000000000009 s3 0000000000000095 s4 0000000000000000 [ 130.641771] s5 ffff80001b894000 s6 ffff80001b897fb0 s7 9000000004090c50 s8 0000000000000000 [ 130.641900] ra: 9000000003139e70 build_body+0x1fcc/0x4988 [ 130.642007] ERA: 9000000003137f7c build_body+0xd8/0x4988 [ 130.642112] CRMD: 000000b0 (PLV0 -IE -DA +PG DACF=CC DACM=CC -WE) [ 130.642261] PRMD: 00000004 (PPLV0 +PIE -PWE) [ 130.642353] EUEN: 00000003 (+FPE +SXE -ASXE -BTE) [ 130.642458] ECFG: 00071c1c (LIE=2-4,10-12 VS=7) [ 130.642554] ESTAT: 00010000 [PIL] (IS= ECode=1 EsubCode=0) [ 130.642658] BADV: ffff80001b898004 [ 130.642719] PRID: 0014c010 (Loongson-64bit, Loongson-3A5000) [ 130.642815] Modules linked in: [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(O)] [ 130.642924] Process test_tag (pid: 1326, threadinfo=00000000f7f4015f, task=000000006499f9fd) [ 130.643062] Stack : 0000000000000000 9000000003380724 0000000000000000 0000000104cb7be8 [ 130.643213] 0000000000000000 25af8d9b6e600558 9000000106250ea0 9000000104cb7ae0 [ 130.643378] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 9000000104cb7be8 90000000049f6000 [ 130.643538] 0000000000000090 9000000106250ea0 ffff80001b894000 ffff80001b894000 [ 130.643685] 00007ffffb917790 900000000313ca94 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 130.643831] ffff80001b894000 0000000000000ff7 0000000000000000 9000000100468000 [ 130.643983] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000040 25af8d9b6e600558 [ 130.644131] 0000000000000bb7 ffff80001b894048 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 130.644276] 9000000104cb7be8 90000000049f6000 0000000000000090 9000000104cb7bdc [ 130.644423] ffff80001b894000 0000000000000000 00007ffffb917790 90000000032acfb0 [ 130.644572] ... [ 130.644629] Call Trace: [ 130.644641] [<9000000003137f7c>] build_body+0xd8/0x4988 [ 130.644785] [<900000000313ca94>] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x228/0x4ec [ 130.644891] [<90000000032acfb0>] bpf_prog_select_runtime+0x158/0x1b0 [ 130.645003] [<90000000032b3504>] bpf_prog_load+0x760/0xb44 [ 130.645089] [<90000000032b6744>] __sys_bpf+0xbb8/0x2588 [ 130.645175] [<90000000032b8388>] sys_bpf+0x20/0x2c [ 130.645259] [<9000000003f6ab38>] do_syscall+0x7c/0x94 [ 130.645369] [<9000000003121c5c>] handle_syscall+0xbc/0x158 [ 130.645507] [ 130.645539] Code: 380839f6 380831f9 28412bae <24000ca6> 004081ad 0014cb50 004083e8 02bff34c 58008e91 [ 130.645729] [ 130.646418] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- On my machine, which has CONFIG_PAGE_SIZE_16KB=y, the test failed at loading a BPF prog with 2039 instructions: prog = (struct bpf_prog *)ffff80001b894000 insn = (struct bpf_insn *)(prog->insnsi)fff ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read
The product reads 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) 6.1 To (excluding) 6.1.75

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.2

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.