CVE-2024-43837 : Detail

CVE-2024-43837

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.05%V4
Local
2024-08-17
09h21 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h16 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

bpf: Fix null pointer dereference in resolve_prog_type() for BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix null pointer dereference in resolve_prog_type() for BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT When loading a EXT program without specifying `attr->attach_prog_fd`, the `prog->aux->dst_prog` will be null. At this time, calling resolve_prog_type() anywhere will result in a null pointer dereference. Example stack trace: [ 8.107863] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000004 [ 8.108262] Mem abort info: [ 8.108384] ESR = 0x0000000096000004 [ 8.108547] EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits [ 8.108722] SET = 0, FnV = 0 [ 8.108827] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 [ 8.108939] FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault [ 8.109102] Data abort info: [ 8.109203] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004, ISS2 = 0x00000000 [ 8.109399] CM = 0, WnR = 0, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0 [ 8.109614] GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0 [ 8.109836] user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=0000000101354000 [ 8.110011] [0000000000000004] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000 [ 8.112624] Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 8.112783] Modules linked in: [ 8.113120] CPU: 0 PID: 99 Comm: may_access_dire Not tainted 6.10.0-rc3-next-20240613-dirty #1 [ 8.113230] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) [ 8.113390] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 8.113429] pc : may_access_direct_pkt_data+0x24/0xa0 [ 8.113746] lr : add_subprog_and_kfunc+0x634/0x8e8 [ 8.113798] sp : ffff80008283b9f0 [ 8.113813] x29: ffff80008283b9f0 x28: ffff800082795048 x27: 0000000000000001 [ 8.113881] x26: ffff0000c0bb2600 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: 0000000000000000 [ 8.113897] x23: ffff0000c1134000 x22: 000000000001864f x21: ffff0000c1138000 [ 8.113912] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff0000c12b8000 x18: ffffffffffffffff [ 8.113929] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0720072007200720 [ 8.113944] x14: 0720072007200720 x13: 0720072007200720 x12: 0720072007200720 [ 8.113958] x11: 0720072007200720 x10: 0000000000f9fca4 x9 : ffff80008021f4e4 [ 8.113991] x8 : 0101010101010101 x7 : 746f72705f6d656d x6 : 000000001e0e0f5f [ 8.114006] x5 : 000000000001864f x4 : ffff0000c12b8000 x3 : 000000000000001c [ 8.114020] x2 : 0000000000000002 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 8.114126] Call trace: [ 8.114159] may_access_direct_pkt_data+0x24/0xa0 [ 8.114202] bpf_check+0x3bc/0x28c0 [ 8.114214] bpf_prog_load+0x658/0xa58 [ 8.114227] __sys_bpf+0xc50/0x2250 [ 8.114240] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x28/0x40 [ 8.114254] invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x54/0xf0 [ 8.114273] do_el0_svc+0x4c/0xd8 [ 8.114289] el0_svc+0x3c/0x140 [ 8.114305] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x134/0x150 [ 8.114331] el0t_64_sync+0x168/0x170 [ 8.114477] Code: 7100707f 54000081 f9401c00 f9403800 (b9400403) [ 8.118672] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- One way to fix it is by forcing `attach_prog_fd` non-empty when bpf_prog_load(). But this will lead to `libbpf_probe_bpf_prog_type` API broken which use verifier log to probe prog type and will log nothing if we reject invalid EXT prog before bpf_check(). Another way is by adding null check in resolve_prog_type(). The issue was introduced by commit 4a9c7bbe2ed4 ("bpf: Resolve to prog->aux->dst_prog->type only for BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT") which wanted to correct type resolution for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING programs. Before that, the type resolution of BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT prog actually follows the logic below: prog->aux->dst_prog ? prog->aux->dst_prog->type : prog->type; It implies that when EXT program is not yet attached to `dst_prog`, the prog type should be EXT itself. This code worked fine in the past. So just keep using it. Fix this by returning `prog->type` for BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT if `dst_prog` is not present in resolve_prog_type().

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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) 5.18 To (excluding) 6.1.103

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.44

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10.3

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.