CVE-2024-26853 : Detail

CVE-2024-26853

5.5
/
Medium
Overflow
0.05%V4
Local
2024-04-17
10h17 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h48 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

igc: avoid returning frame twice in XDP_REDIRECT

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: igc: avoid returning frame twice in XDP_REDIRECT When a frame can not be transmitted in XDP_REDIRECT (e.g. due to a full queue), it is necessary to free it by calling xdp_return_frame_rx_napi. However, this is the responsibility of the caller of the ndo_xdp_xmit (see for example bq_xmit_all in kernel/bpf/devmap.c) and thus calling it inside igc_xdp_xmit (which is the ndo_xdp_xmit of the igc driver) as well will lead to memory corruption. In fact, bq_xmit_all expects that it can return all frames after the last successfully transmitted one. Therefore, break for the first not transmitted frame, but do not call xdp_return_frame_rx_napi in igc_xdp_xmit. This is equally implemented in other Intel drivers such as the igb. There are two alternatives to this that were rejected: 1. Return num_frames as all the frames would have been transmitted and release them inside igc_xdp_xmit. While it might work technically, it is not what the return value is meant to represent (i.e. the number of SUCCESSFULLY transmitted packets). 2. Rework kernel/bpf/devmap.c and all drivers to support non-consecutively dropped packets. Besides being complex, it likely has a negative performance impact without a significant gain since it is anyway unlikely that the next frame can be transmitted if the previous one was dropped. The memory corruption can be reproduced with the following script which leads to a kernel panic after a few seconds. It basically generates more traffic than a i225 NIC can transmit and pushes it via XDP_REDIRECT from a virtual interface to the physical interface where frames get dropped. #!/bin/bash INTERFACE=enp4s0 INTERFACE_IDX=`cat /sys/class/net/$INTERFACE/ifindex` sudo ip link add dev veth1 type veth peer name veth2 sudo ip link set up $INTERFACE sudo ip link set up veth1 sudo ip link set up veth2 cat << EOF > redirect.bpf.c SEC("prog") int redirect(struct xdp_md *ctx) { return bpf_redirect($INTERFACE_IDX, 0); } char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; EOF clang -O2 -g -Wall -target bpf -c redirect.bpf.c -o redirect.bpf.o sudo ip link set veth2 xdp obj redirect.bpf.o cat << EOF > pass.bpf.c SEC("prog") int pass(struct xdp_md *ctx) { return XDP_PASS; } char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; EOF clang -O2 -g -Wall -target bpf -c pass.bpf.c -o pass.bpf.o sudo ip link set $INTERFACE xdp obj pass.bpf.o cat << EOF > trafgen.cfg { /* Ethernet Header */ 0xe8, 0x6a, 0x64, 0x41, 0xbf, 0x46, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, const16(ETH_P_IP), /* IPv4 Header */ 0b01000101, 0, # IPv4 version, IHL, TOS const16(1028), # IPv4 total length (UDP length + 20 bytes (IP header)) const16(2), # IPv4 ident 0b01000000, 0, # IPv4 flags, fragmentation off 64, # IPv4 TTL 17, # Protocol UDP csumip(14, 33), # IPv4 checksum /* UDP Header */ 10, 0, 1, 1, # IP Src - adapt as needed 10, 0, 1, 2, # IP Dest - adapt as needed const16(6666), # UDP Src Port const16(6666), # UDP Dest Port const16(1008), # UDP length (UDP header 8 bytes + payload length) csumudp(14, 34), # UDP checksum /* Payload */ fill('W', 1000), } EOF sudo trafgen -i trafgen.cfg -b3000MB -o veth1 --cpp

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 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

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

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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) 5.13 To (excluding) 6.1.82

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.22

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

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.