CVE-2024-27405 : Détail

CVE-2024-27405

7.5
/
Haute
Memory Corruption
3.36%V4
Network
2024-05-17
11h40 +00:00
2025-01-28
16h38 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

usb: gadget: ncm: Avoid dropping datagrams of properly parsed NTBs

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: usb: gadget: ncm: Avoid dropping datagrams of properly parsed NTBs It is observed sometimes when tethering is used over NCM with Windows 11 as host, at some instances, the gadget_giveback has one byte appended at the end of a proper NTB. When the NTB is parsed, unwrap call looks for any leftover bytes in SKB provided by u_ether and if there are any pending bytes, it treats them as a separate NTB and parses it. But in case the second NTB (as per unwrap call) is faulty/corrupt, all the datagrams that were parsed properly in the first NTB and saved in rx_list are dropped. Adding a few custom traces showed the following: [002] d..1 7828.532866: dwc3_gadget_giveback: ep1out: req 000000003868811a length 1025/16384 zsI ==> 0 [002] d..1 7828.532867: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb toprocess: 1025 [002] d..1 7828.532867: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb nth: 1751999342 [002] d..1 7828.532868: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb seq: 0xce67 [002] d..1 7828.532868: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb blk_len: 0x400 [002] d..1 7828.532868: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb ndp_len: 0x10 [002] d..1 7828.532869: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: Parsed NTB with 1 frames In this case, the giveback is of 1025 bytes and block length is 1024. The rest 1 byte (which is 0x00) won't be parsed resulting in drop of all datagrams in rx_list. Same is case with packets of size 2048: [002] d..1 7828.557948: dwc3_gadget_giveback: ep1out: req 0000000011dfd96e length 2049/16384 zsI ==> 0 [002] d..1 7828.557949: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb nth: 1751999342 [002] d..1 7828.557950: ncm_unwrap_ntb: K: ncm_unwrap_ntb blk_len: 0x800 Lecroy shows one byte coming in extra confirming that the byte is coming in from PC: Transfer 2959 - Bytes Transferred(1025) Timestamp((18.524 843 590) - Transaction 8391 - Data(1025 bytes) Timestamp(18.524 843 590) --- Packet 4063861 Data(1024 bytes) Duration(2.117us) Idle(14.700ns) Timestamp(18.524 843 590) --- Packet 4063863 Data(1 byte) Duration(66.160ns) Time(282.000ns) Timestamp(18.524 845 722) According to Windows driver, no ZLP is needed if wBlockLength is non-zero, because the non-zero wBlockLength has already told the function side the size of transfer to be expected. However, there are in-market NCM devices that rely on ZLP as long as the wBlockLength is multiple of wMaxPacketSize. To deal with such devices, it pads an extra 0 at end so the transfer is no longer multiple of wMaxPacketSize.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

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

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 2.6.38 To (excluding) 4.19.308

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.270

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.211

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.150

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.80

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 10.0

Références