CVE-2024-35969 : Detail

CVE-2024-35969

5.5
/
Medium
0.05%V4
Local
2024-05-20
09h41 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h59 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

ipv6: fix race condition between ipv6_get_ifaddr and ipv6_del_addr

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: fix race condition between ipv6_get_ifaddr and ipv6_del_addr Although ipv6_get_ifaddr walks inet6_addr_lst under the RCU lock, it still means hlist_for_each_entry_rcu can return an item that got removed from the list. The memory itself of such item is not freed thanks to RCU but nothing guarantees the actual content of the memory is sane. In particular, the reference count can be zero. This can happen if ipv6_del_addr is called in parallel. ipv6_del_addr removes the entry from inet6_addr_lst (hlist_del_init_rcu(&ifp->addr_lst)) and drops all references (__in6_ifa_put(ifp) + in6_ifa_put(ifp)). With bad enough timing, this can happen: 1. In ipv6_get_ifaddr, hlist_for_each_entry_rcu returns an entry. 2. Then, the whole ipv6_del_addr is executed for the given entry. The reference count drops to zero and kfree_rcu is scheduled. 3. ipv6_get_ifaddr continues and tries to increments the reference count (in6_ifa_hold). 4. The rcu is unlocked and the entry is freed. 5. The freed entry is returned. Prevent increasing of the reference count in such case. The name in6_ifa_hold_safe is chosen to mimic the existing fib6_info_hold_safe. [ 41.506330] refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free. [ 41.506760] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 595 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xa5/0x130 [ 41.507413] Modules linked in: veth bridge stp llc [ 41.507821] CPU: 0 PID: 595 Comm: python3 Not tainted 6.9.0-rc2.main-00208-g49563be82afa #14 [ 41.508479] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) [ 41.509163] RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0xa5/0x130 [ 41.509586] Code: ad ff 90 0f 0b 90 90 c3 cc cc cc cc 80 3d c0 30 ad 01 00 75 a0 c6 05 b7 30 ad 01 01 90 48 c7 c7 38 cc 7a 8c e8 cc 18 ad ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 90 c3 cc cc cc cc 80 3d 98 30 ad 01 00 0f 85 75 ff ff ff [ 41.510956] RSP: 0018:ffffbda3c026baf0 EFLAGS: 00010282 [ 41.511368] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9e9c46914800 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 41.511910] RDX: ffff9e9c7ec29c00 RSI: ffff9e9c7ec1c900 RDI: ffff9e9c7ec1c900 [ 41.512445] RBP: ffff9e9c43660c9c R08: 0000000000009ffb R09: 00000000ffffdfff [ 41.512998] R10: 00000000ffffdfff R11: ffffffff8ca58a40 R12: ffff9e9c4339a000 [ 41.513534] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: ffff9e9c438a0000 R15: ffffbda3c026bb48 [ 41.514086] FS: 00007fbc4cda1740(0000) GS:ffff9e9c7ec00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 41.514726] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 41.515176] CR2: 000056233b337d88 CR3: 000000000376e006 CR4: 0000000000370ef0 [ 41.515713] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 41.516252] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 41.516799] Call Trace: [ 41.517037] [ 41.517249] ? __warn+0x7b/0x120 [ 41.517535] ? refcount_warn_saturate+0xa5/0x130 [ 41.517923] ? report_bug+0x164/0x190 [ 41.518240] ? handle_bug+0x3d/0x70 [ 41.518541] ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 [ 41.520972] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 [ 41.521325] ? refcount_warn_saturate+0xa5/0x130 [ 41.521708] ipv6_get_ifaddr+0xda/0xe0 [ 41.522035] inet6_rtm_getaddr+0x342/0x3f0 [ 41.522376] ? __pfx_inet6_rtm_getaddr+0x10/0x10 [ 41.522758] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x334/0x3d0 [ 41.523102] ? netlink_unicast+0x30f/0x390 [ 41.523445] ? __pfx_rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x10/0x10 [ 41.523832] netlink_rcv_skb+0x53/0x100 [ 41.524157] netlink_unicast+0x23b/0x390 [ 41.524484] netlink_sendmsg+0x1f2/0x440 [ 41.524826] __sys_sendto+0x1d8/0x1f0 [ 41.525145] __x64_sys_sendto+0x1f/0x30 [ 41.525467] do_syscall_64+0xa5/0x1b0 [ 41.525794] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0x7a [ 41.526213] RIP: 0033:0x7fbc4cfcea9a [ 41.526528] Code: d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b8 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 41 89 ca 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 15 b8 2c 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 7e c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 41 54 48 83 ec 30 44 89 [ 41.527942] RSP: 002b:00007f ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.

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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

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) 2.6.35 To (excluding) 4.19.313

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.275

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.216

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.156

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.87

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.28

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.8.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 10.0

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.