CVE-2024-49949 Detail

CVE-2024-49949

Score / Severity

5.5

Medium

CVE Descriptions

net: avoid potential underflow in qdisc_pkt_len_init() with UFO

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: avoid potential underflow in qdisc_pkt_len_init() with UFO After commit 7c6d2ecbda83 ("net: be more gentle about silly gso requests coming from user") virtio_net_hdr_to_skb() had sanity check to detect malicious attempts from user space to cook a bad GSO packet. Then commit cf9acc90c80ec ("net: virtio_net_hdr_to_skb: count transport header in UFO") while fixing one issue, allowed user space to cook a GSO packet with the following characteristic : IPv4 SKB_GSO_UDP, gso_size=3, skb->len = 28. When this packet arrives in qdisc_pkt_len_init(), we end up with hdr_len = 28 (IPv4 header + UDP header), matching skb->len Then the following sets gso_segs to 0 : gso_segs = DIV_ROUND_UP(skb->len - hdr_len, shinfo->gso_size); Then later we set qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len to back to zero :/ qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len += (gso_segs - 1) * hdr_len; This leads to the following crash in fq_codel [1] qdisc_pkt_len_init() is best effort, we only want an estimation of the bytes sent on the wire, not crashing the kernel. This patch is fixing this particular issue, a following one adds more sanity checks for another potential bug. [1] [ 70.724101] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000 [ 70.724561] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode [ 70.724561] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page [ 70.724561] PGD 10ac61067 P4D 10ac61067 PUD 107ee2067 PMD 0 [ 70.724561] Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI [ 70.724561] CPU: 11 UID: 0 PID: 2163 Comm: b358537762 Not tainted 6.11.0-virtme #991 [ 70.724561] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014 [ 70.724561] RIP: 0010:fq_codel_enqueue (net/sched/sch_fq_codel.c:120 net/sched/sch_fq_codel.c:168 net/sched/sch_fq_codel.c:230) sch_fq_codel [ 70.724561] Code: 24 08 49 c1 e1 06 44 89 7c 24 18 45 31 ed 45 31 c0 31 ff 89 44 24 14 4c 03 8b 90 01 00 00 eb 04 39 ca 73 37 4d 8b 39 83 c7 01 <49> 8b 17 49 89 11 41 8b 57 28 45 8b 5f 34 49 c7 07 00 00 00 00 49 All code ======== 0: 24 08 and $0x8,%al 2: 49 c1 e1 06 shl $0x6,%r9 6: 44 89 7c 24 18 mov %r15d,0x18(%rsp) b: 45 31 ed xor %r13d,%r13d e: 45 31 c0 xor %r8d,%r8d 11: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi 13: 89 44 24 14 mov %eax,0x14(%rsp) 17: 4c 03 8b 90 01 00 00 add 0x190(%rbx),%r9 1e: eb 04 jmp 0x24 20: 39 ca cmp %ecx,%edx 22: 73 37 jae 0x5b 24: 4d 8b 39 mov (%r9),%r15 27: 83 c7 01 add $0x1,%edi 2a:* 49 8b 17 mov (%r15),%rdx <-- trapping instruction 2d: 49 89 11 mov %rdx,(%r9) 30: 41 8b 57 28 mov 0x28(%r15),%edx 34: 45 8b 5f 34 mov 0x34(%r15),%r11d 38: 49 c7 07 00 00 00 00 movq $0x0,(%r15) 3f: 49 rex.WB Code starting with the faulting instruction =========================================== 0: 49 8b 17 mov (%r15),%rdx 3: 49 89 11 mov %rdx,(%r9) 6: 41 8b 57 28 mov 0x28(%r15),%edx a: 45 8b 5f 34 mov 0x34(%r15),%r11d e: 49 c7 07 00 00 00 00 movq $0x0,(%r15) 15: 49 rex.WB [ 70.724561] RSP: 0018:ffff95ae85e6fb90 EFLAGS: 00000202 [ 70.724561] RAX: 0000000002000000 RBX: ffff95ae841de000 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 70.724561] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000001 [ 70.724561] RBP: ffff95ae85e6fbf8 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff95b710a30000 [ 70.724561] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: bdf289445ce31881 R12: ffff95ae85e6fc58 [ 70.724561] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000040 R15: 0000000000000000 [ 70.724561] FS: 000000002c5c1380(0000) GS:ffff95bd7fcc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 70.724561] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 C ---truncated---

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 More informations 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.	[email protected]

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