CVE-2024-50301 : Detail

CVE-2024-50301

7.1
/
High
Overflow
0.04%V3
Local
2024-11-19
01h30 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h37 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

security/keys: fix slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: security/keys: fix slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission KASAN reports an out of bounds read: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in __kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36 BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission+0x394/0x410 security/keys/permission.c:54 Read of size 4 at addr ffff88813c3ab618 by task stress-ng/4362 CPU: 2 PID: 4362 Comm: stress-ng Not tainted 5.10.0-14930-gafbffd6c3ede #15 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:82 [inline] dump_stack+0x107/0x167 lib/dump_stack.c:123 print_address_description.constprop.0+0x19/0x170 mm/kasan/report.c:400 __kasan_report.cold+0x6c/0x84 mm/kasan/report.c:560 kasan_report+0x3a/0x50 mm/kasan/report.c:585 __kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36 [inline] uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline] key_task_permission+0x394/0x410 security/keys/permission.c:54 search_nested_keyrings+0x90e/0xe90 security/keys/keyring.c:793 This issue was also reported by syzbot. It can be reproduced by following these steps(more details [1]): 1. Obtain more than 32 inputs that have similar hashes, which ends with the pattern '0xxxxxxxe6'. 2. Reboot and add the keys obtained in step 1. The reproducer demonstrates how this issue happened: 1. In the search_nested_keyrings function, when it iterates through the slots in a node(below tag ascend_to_node), if the slot pointer is meta and node->back_pointer != NULL(it means a root), it will proceed to descend_to_node. However, there is an exception. If node is the root, and one of the slots points to a shortcut, it will be treated as a keyring. 2. Whether the ptr is keyring decided by keyring_ptr_is_keyring function. However, KEYRING_PTR_SUBTYPE is 0x2UL, the same as ASSOC_ARRAY_PTR_SUBTYPE_MASK. 3. When 32 keys with the similar hashes are added to the tree, the ROOT has keys with hashes that are not similar (e.g. slot 0) and it splits NODE A without using a shortcut. When NODE A is filled with keys that all hashes are xxe6, the keys are similar, NODE A will split with a shortcut. Finally, it forms the tree as shown below, where slot 6 points to a shortcut. NODE A +------>+---+ ROOT | | 0 | xxe6 +---+ | +---+ xxxx | 0 | shortcut : : xxe6 +---+ | +---+ xxe6 : : | | | xxe6 +---+ | +---+ | 6 |---+ : : xxe6 +---+ +---+ xxe6 : : | f | xxe6 +---+ +---+ xxe6 | f | +---+ 4. As mentioned above, If a slot(slot 6) of the root points to a shortcut, it may be mistakenly transferred to a key*, leading to a read out-of-bounds read. To fix this issue, one should jump to descend_to_node if the ptr is a shortcut, regardless of whether the node is root or not. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/[email protected]/ [jarkko: tweaked the commit message a bit to have an appropriate closes tag.]

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

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

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 3.13 To (excluding) 4.19.324

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.286

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.230

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.172

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.117

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.61

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

References