CVE-2024-41010 : Détail

CVE-2024-41010

5.5
/
Moyen
Memory Corruption
0.06%V4
Local
2024-07-17
06h10 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h09 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

bpf: Fix too early release of tcx_entry

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix too early release of tcx_entry Pedro Pinto and later independently also Hyunwoo Kim and Wongi Lee reported an issue that the tcx_entry can be released too early leading to a use after free (UAF) when an active old-style ingress or clsact qdisc with a shared tc block is later replaced by another ingress or clsact instance. Essentially, the sequence to trigger the UAF (one example) can be as follows: 1. A network namespace is created 2. An ingress qdisc is created. This allocates a tcx_entry, and &tcx_entry->miniq is stored in the qdisc's miniqp->p_miniq. At the same time, a tcf block with index 1 is created. 3. chain0 is attached to the tcf block. chain0 must be connected to the block linked to the ingress qdisc to later reach the function tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del() which triggers the UAF. 4. Create and graft a clsact qdisc. This causes the ingress qdisc created in step 1 to be removed, thus freeing the previously linked tcx_entry: rtnetlink_rcv_msg() => tc_modify_qdisc() => qdisc_create() => clsact_init() [a] => qdisc_graft() => qdisc_destroy() => __qdisc_destroy() => ingress_destroy() [b] => tcx_entry_free() => kfree_rcu() // tcx_entry freed 5. Finally, the network namespace is closed. This registers the cleanup_net worker, and during the process of releasing the remaining clsact qdisc, it accesses the tcx_entry that was already freed in step 4, causing the UAF to occur: cleanup_net() => ops_exit_list() => default_device_exit_batch() => unregister_netdevice_many() => unregister_netdevice_many_notify() => dev_shutdown() => qdisc_put() => clsact_destroy() [c] => tcf_block_put_ext() => tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del() => tcf_chain_head_change_item() => clsact_chain_head_change() => mini_qdisc_pair_swap() // UAF There are also other variants, the gist is to add an ingress (or clsact) qdisc with a specific shared block, then to replace that qdisc, waiting for the tcx_entry kfree_rcu() to be executed and subsequently accessing the current active qdisc's miniq one way or another. The correct fix is to turn the miniq_active boolean into a counter. What can be observed, at step 2 above, the counter transitions from 0->1, at step [a] from 1->2 (in order for the miniq object to remain active during the replacement), then in [b] from 2->1 and finally [c] 1->0 with the eventual release. The reference counter in general ranges from [0,2] and it does not need to be atomic since all access to the counter is protected by the rtnl mutex. With this in place, there is no longer a UAF happening and the tcx_entry is freed at the correct time.

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 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.

 nvd@nist.gov

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) 6.6 To (excluding) 6.6.41

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.9.10

Références

Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.