CVE-2024-56548 : Détail

CVE-2024-56548

7.8
/
Haute
Overflow
0.04%V3
Local
2024-12-27
14h11 +00:00
2025-01-20
06h22 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times Devices block sizes may change. One of these cases is a loop device by using ioctl LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While this may cause other issues like IO being rejected, in the case of hfsplus, it will allocate a block by using that size and potentially write out-of-bounds when hfsplus_read_wrapper calls hfsplus_submit_bio and the latter function reads a different io_size. Using a new min_io_size initally set to sb_min_blocksize works for the purposes of the original fix, since it will be set to the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and the first seen logical block size. We still use the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and min_io_size in case the latter is not initialized. Tested by mounting an hfsplus filesystem with loop block sizes 512, 1024 and 4096. The produced KASAN report before the fix looks like this: [ 419.944641] ================================================================== [ 419.945655] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x659/0xa0a [ 419.946703] Read of size 2 at addr ffff88800721fc00 by task repro/10678 [ 419.947612] [ 419.947846] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 10678 Comm: repro Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5-00008-gdf56e0f2f3ca #84 [ 419.949007] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 [ 419.950035] Call Trace: [ 419.950384] [ 419.950676] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x78 [ 419.951212] ? hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x659/0xa0a [ 419.951830] print_report+0x14c/0x49e [ 419.952361] ? __virt_addr_valid+0x267/0x278 [ 419.952979] ? kmem_cache_debug_flags+0xc/0x1d [ 419.953561] ? hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x659/0xa0a [ 419.954231] kasan_report+0x89/0xb0 [ 419.954748] ? hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x659/0xa0a [ 419.955367] hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x659/0xa0a [ 419.955948] ? __pfx_hfsplus_read_wrapper+0x10/0x10 [ 419.956618] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x59/0x1a9 [ 419.957214] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1a/0x2e [ 419.957772] hfsplus_fill_super+0x348/0x1590 [ 419.958355] ? hlock_class+0x4c/0x109 [ 419.958867] ? __pfx_hfsplus_fill_super+0x10/0x10 [ 419.959499] ? __pfx_string+0x10/0x10 [ 419.960006] ? lock_acquire+0x3e2/0x454 [ 419.960532] ? bdev_name.constprop.0+0xce/0x243 [ 419.961129] ? __pfx_bdev_name.constprop.0+0x10/0x10 [ 419.961799] ? pointer+0x3f0/0x62f [ 419.962277] ? __pfx_pointer+0x10/0x10 [ 419.962761] ? vsnprintf+0x6c4/0xfba [ 419.963178] ? __pfx_vsnprintf+0x10/0x10 [ 419.963621] ? setup_bdev_super+0x376/0x3b3 [ 419.964029] ? snprintf+0x9d/0xd2 [ 419.964344] ? __pfx_snprintf+0x10/0x10 [ 419.964675] ? lock_acquired+0x45c/0x5e9 [ 419.965016] ? set_blocksize+0x139/0x1c1 [ 419.965381] ? sb_set_blocksize+0x6d/0xae [ 419.965742] ? __pfx_hfsplus_fill_super+0x10/0x10 [ 419.966179] mount_bdev+0x12f/0x1bf [ 419.966512] ? __pfx_mount_bdev+0x10/0x10 [ 419.966886] ? vfs_parse_fs_string+0xce/0x111 [ 419.967293] ? __pfx_vfs_parse_fs_string+0x10/0x10 [ 419.967702] ? __pfx_hfsplus_mount+0x10/0x10 [ 419.968073] legacy_get_tree+0x104/0x178 [ 419.968414] vfs_get_tree+0x86/0x296 [ 419.968751] path_mount+0xba3/0xd0b [ 419.969157] ? __pfx_path_mount+0x10/0x10 [ 419.969594] ? kmem_cache_free+0x1e2/0x260 [ 419.970311] do_mount+0x99/0xe0 [ 419.970630] ? __pfx_do_mount+0x10/0x10 [ 419.971008] __do_sys_mount+0x199/0x1c9 [ 419.971397] do_syscall_64+0xd0/0x135 [ 419.971761] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 419.972233] RIP: 0033:0x7c3cb812972e [ 419.972564] Code: 48 8b 0d f5 46 0d 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 83 c8 ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 49 89 ca b8 a5 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d c2 46 0d 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 [ 419.974371] RSP: 002b:00007ffe30632548 EFLAGS: 00000286 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a5 [ 419.975048] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffe306328d8 RCX: 00007c3cb812972e [ 419.975701] RDX: 0000000020000000 RSI: 0000000020000c80 RDI: ---truncated---

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 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

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.

 [email protected]

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) 3.0.8 To (excluding) 4.19.325

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.287

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.231

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.174

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.120

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.64

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12 To (excluding) 6.12.2

Références