CVE-2024-26685

Score / Gravité

5.5

Moyen

Catégories

Overflow

EPSS

0.09%V4

Vecteur

Local

Publié

2024-04-03
14h54 +00:00

Modifié

2024-12-19
08h45 +00:00

Liens officiels

CVE.org

NVD

Notifications pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Gestion des notifications

Liste des Notifications

Notifications pour un CVE

Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.

Critères appliqués l'envoi de l'alerte : par rapport à la dernière alerte envoyée + différences au niveau de CISA, EPSS, CVSS, CWE, Solutions, CPE.

Paramètres

Vous pouvez spécifier un titre qui sera récupéré dans les alertes qui seront envoyées.

Spécifiez ici un CVE ID comme CVE-2025-1234

Planifications

Mois

Prochaine exécution calculée

Jour

Jour de la semaine

Heure

Minute

Date de création

Dernière exécution

Prochaine exécution

Fonctionnalité nécessitant une connexion

Cette fonctionnalité qui vous permet de recevoir des alertes, n'est active que lorsque vous êtes connecté à votre compte.

Descriptions du CVE

nilfs2: fix potential bug in end_buffer_async_write

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: fix potential bug in end_buffer_async_write According to a syzbot report, end_buffer_async_write(), which handles the completion of block device writes, may detect abnormal condition of the buffer async_write flag and cause a BUG_ON failure when using nilfs2. Nilfs2 itself does not use end_buffer_async_write(). But, the async_write flag is now used as a marker by commit 7f42ec394156 ("nilfs2: fix issue with race condition of competition between segments for dirty blocks") as a means of resolving double list insertion of dirty blocks in nilfs_lookup_dirty_data_buffers() and nilfs_lookup_node_buffers() and the resulting crash. This modification is safe as long as it is used for file data and b-tree node blocks where the page caches are independent. However, it was irrelevant and redundant to also introduce async_write for segment summary and super root blocks that share buffers with the backing device. This led to the possibility that the BUG_ON check in end_buffer_async_write would fail as described above, if independent writebacks of the backing device occurred in parallel. The use of async_write for segment summary buffers has already been removed in a previous change. Fix this issue by removing the manipulation of the async_write flag for the remaining super root block buffer.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID	Nom de la faiblesse	Source
CWE-787	Out-of-bounds Write The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Métriques

Métriques	Score	Gravité	CVSS Vecteur	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.	134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Date	EPSS V0	EPSS V1	EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)	EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)	EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2024-04-07	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2024-06-02	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2024-08-11	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2024-11-24	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2025-02-23	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2025-01-19	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2025-02-23	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2025-03-18	–	–	–	–	0.08%
2025-04-09	–	–	–	–	0.09%
2025-04-09	–	–	–	–	0.09,%

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.

EPSS First.org