CVE-2025-21722 Détail

CVE-2025-21722

Score / Gravité

7.8

Haute

Catégories

Memory Corruption

EPSS

0.04%V3

Vecteur

Local

Publié

2025-02-27
02h07 +00:00

Modifié

2025-03-24
15h39 +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: do not force clear folio if buffer is referenced

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: do not force clear folio if buffer is referenced Patch series "nilfs2: protect busy buffer heads from being force-cleared". This series fixes the buffer head state inconsistency issues reported by syzbot that occurs when the filesystem is corrupted and falls back to read-only, and the associated buffer head use-after-free issue. This patch (of 2): Syzbot has reported that after nilfs2 detects filesystem corruption and falls back to read-only, inconsistencies in the buffer state may occur. One of the inconsistencies is that when nilfs2 calls mark_buffer_dirty() to set a data or metadata buffer as dirty, but it detects that the buffer is not in the uptodate state: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6049 at fs/buffer.c:1177 mark_buffer_dirty+0x2e5/0x520 fs/buffer.c:1177 ... Call Trace: nilfs_palloc_commit_alloc_entry+0x4b/0x160 fs/nilfs2/alloc.c:598 nilfs_ifile_create_inode+0x1dd/0x3a0 fs/nilfs2/ifile.c:73 nilfs_new_inode+0x254/0x830 fs/nilfs2/inode.c:344 nilfs_mkdir+0x10d/0x340 fs/nilfs2/namei.c:218 vfs_mkdir+0x2f9/0x4f0 fs/namei.c:4257 do_mkdirat+0x264/0x3a0 fs/namei.c:4280 __do_sys_mkdirat fs/namei.c:4295 [inline] __se_sys_mkdirat fs/namei.c:4293 [inline] __x64_sys_mkdirat+0x87/0xa0 fs/namei.c:4293 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f The other is when nilfs_btree_propagate(), which propagates the dirty state to the ancestor nodes of a b-tree that point to a dirty buffer, detects that the origin buffer is not dirty, even though it should be: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5245 at fs/nilfs2/btree.c:2089 nilfs_btree_propagate+0xc79/0xdf0 fs/nilfs2/btree.c:2089 ... Call Trace: nilfs_bmap_propagate+0x75/0x120 fs/nilfs2/bmap.c:345 nilfs_collect_file_data+0x4d/0xd0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:587 nilfs_segctor_apply_buffers+0x184/0x340 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1006 nilfs_segctor_scan_file+0x28c/0xa50 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1045 nilfs_segctor_collect_blocks fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1216 [inline] nilfs_segctor_collect fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1540 [inline] nilfs_segctor_do_construct+0x1c28/0x6b90 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2115 nilfs_segctor_construct+0x181/0x6b0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2479 nilfs_segctor_thread_construct fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2587 [inline] nilfs_segctor_thread+0x69e/0xe80 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2701 kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389 ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 Both of these issues are caused by the callbacks that handle the page/folio write requests, forcibly clear various states, including the working state of the buffers they hold, at unexpected times when they detect read-only fallback. Fix these issues by checking if the buffer is referenced before clearing the page/folio state, and skipping the clear if it is.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID	Nom de la faiblesse	Source
CWE-416	Use After Free The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

Métriques

Métriques	Score	Gravité	CVSS Vecteur	Source
V3.1	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. 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. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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