CVE-2024-53044 Detail

CVE-2024-53044

Score / Severity

5.5

Medium

EPSS

0.04%V3

Vector

Local

Published

2024-11-19
17h19 +00:00

Modified

2024-12-19
09h37 +00:00

Official links

CVE.org

NVD

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Notifications manage

List of Notifications

Notifications for a CVE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.

Criteria applied when sending the alert: compared with the last alert sent + differences in CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Parameters

You can specify a title that will be retrieved in the alerts that will be sent out.

Specified here a CVE ID as CVE-2025-1234

Planning

Month

Next run calculation

Day

Weekday

Hour

Minute

Creation date

Last execution

Next execution

Functionality requiring a connection

This feature, which allows you to receive alerts, is only active when you are logged into your account.

CVE Descriptions

net/sched: sch_api: fix xa_insert() error path in tcf_block_get_ext()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: sch_api: fix xa_insert() error path in tcf_block_get_ext() This command: $ tc qdisc replace dev eth0 ingress_block 1 egress_block 1 clsact Error: block dev insert failed: -EBUSY. fails because user space requests the same block index to be set for both ingress and egress. [ side note, I don't think it even failed prior to commit 913b47d3424e ("net/sched: Introduce tc block netdev tracking infra"), because this is a command from an old set of notes of mine which used to work, but alas, I did not scientifically bisect this ] The problem is not that it fails, but rather, that the second time around, it fails differently (and irrecoverably): $ tc qdisc replace dev eth0 ingress_block 1 egress_block 1 clsact Error: dsa_core: Flow block cb is busy. [ another note: the extack is added by me for illustration purposes. the context of the problem is that clsact_init() obtains the same &q->ingress_block pointer as &q->egress_block, and since we call tcf_block_get_ext() on both of them, "dev" will be added to the block->ports xarray twice, thus failing the operation: once through the ingress block pointer, and once again through the egress block pointer. the problem itself is that when xa_insert() fails, we have emitted a FLOW_BLOCK_BIND command through ndo_setup_tc(), but the offload never sees a corresponding FLOW_BLOCK_UNBIND. ] Even correcting the bad user input, we still cannot recover: $ tc qdisc replace dev swp3 ingress_block 1 egress_block 2 clsact Error: dsa_core: Flow block cb is busy. Basically the only way to recover is to reboot the system, or unbind and rebind the net device driver. To fix the bug, we need to fill the correct error teardown path which was missed during code movement, and call tcf_block_offload_unbind() when xa_insert() fails. [ last note, fundamentally I blame the label naming convention in tcf_block_get_ext() for the bug. The labels should be named after what they do, not after the error path that jumps to them. This way, it is obviously wrong that two labels pointing to the same code mean something is wrong, and checking the code correctness at the goto site is also easier ]

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE Other	No informations.

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