CVE-2024-45025 : Detail

CVE-2024-45025

5.5
/
Medium
Overflow
0.04%V3
Local
2024-09-11
15h13 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h20 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

fix bitmap corruption on close_range() with CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fix bitmap corruption on close_range() with CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE copy_fd_bitmaps(new, old, count) is expected to copy the first count/BITS_PER_LONG bits from old->full_fds_bits[] and fill the rest with zeroes. What it does is copying enough words (BITS_TO_LONGS(count/BITS_PER_LONG)), then memsets the rest. That works fine, *if* all bits past the cutoff point are clear. Otherwise we are risking garbage from the last word we'd copied. For most of the callers that is true - expand_fdtable() has count equal to old->max_fds, so there's no open descriptors past count, let alone fully occupied words in ->open_fds[], which is what bits in ->full_fds_bits[] correspond to. The other caller (dup_fd()) passes sane_fdtable_size(old_fdt, max_fds), which is the smallest multiple of BITS_PER_LONG that covers all opened descriptors below max_fds. In the common case (copying on fork()) max_fds is ~0U, so all opened descriptors will be below it and we are fine, by the same reasons why the call in expand_fdtable() is safe. Unfortunately, there is a case where max_fds is less than that and where we might, indeed, end up with junk in ->full_fds_bits[] - close_range(from, to, CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE) with * descriptor table being currently shared * 'to' being above the current capacity of descriptor table * 'from' being just under some chunk of opened descriptors. In that case we end up with observably wrong behaviour - e.g. spawn a child with CLONE_FILES, get all descriptors in range 0..127 open, then close_range(64, ~0U, CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE) and watch dup(0) ending up with descriptor #128, despite #64 being observably not open. The minimally invasive fix would be to deal with that in dup_fd(). If this proves to add measurable overhead, we can go that way, but let's try to fix copy_fd_bitmaps() first. * new helper: bitmap_copy_and_expand(to, from, bits_to_copy, size). * make copy_fd_bitmaps() take the bitmap size in words, rather than bits; it's 'count' argument is always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, so we are not losing any information, and that way we can use the same helper for all three bitmaps - compiler will see that count is a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG for the large ones, so it'll generate plain memcpy()+memset(). Reproducer added to tools/testing/selftests/core/close_range_test.c

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

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.

[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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 4.19.321

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.283

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.225

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.166

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.107

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.48

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

References