CVE-2024-43891 : Detail

CVE-2024-43891

4.7
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.04%V4
Local
2024-08-26
10h10 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h17 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

tracing: Have format file honor EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tracing: Have format file honor EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED When eventfs was introduced, special care had to be done to coordinate the freeing of the file meta data with the files that are exposed to user space. The file meta data would have a ref count that is set when the file is created and would be decremented and freed after the last user that opened the file closed it. When the file meta data was to be freed, it would set a flag (EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED) to denote that the file is freed, and any new references made (like new opens or reads) would fail as it is marked freed. This allowed other meta data to be freed after this flag was set (under the event_mutex). All the files that were dynamically created in the events directory had a pointer to the file meta data and would call event_release() when the last reference to the user space file was closed. This would be the time that it is safe to free the file meta data. A shortcut was made for the "format" file. It's i_private would point to the "call" entry directly and not point to the file's meta data. This is because all format files are the same for the same "call", so it was thought there was no reason to differentiate them. The other files maintain state (like the "enable", "trigger", etc). But this meant if the file were to disappear, the "format" file would be unaware of it. This caused a race that could be trigger via the user_events test (that would create dynamic events and free them), and running a loop that would read the user_events format files: In one console run: # cd tools/testing/selftests/user_events # while true; do ./ftrace_test; done And in another console run: # cd /sys/kernel/tracing/ # while true; do cat events/user_events/__test_event/format; done 2>/dev/null With KASAN memory checking, it would trigger a use-after-free bug report (which was a real bug). This was because the format file was not checking the file's meta data flag "EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED", so it would access the event that the file meta data pointed to after the event was freed. After inspection, there are other locations that were found to not check the EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED flag when accessing the trace_event_file. Add a new helper function: event_file_file() that will make sure that the event_mutex is held, and will return NULL if the trace_event_file has the EVENT_FILE_FL_FREED flag set. Have the first reference of the struct file pointer use event_file_file() and check for NULL. Later uses can still use the event_file_data() helper function if the event_mutex is still held and was not released since the event_file_file() call.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-416 Use After Free
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 4.7 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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) 6.6.33 To (excluding) 6.6.49

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.9 To (excluding) 6.10.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

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.