[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240924153652.GA26720@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:36:52 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Joel GUITTET <jguittet@...ekio.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-42154: Linux kernel: tcp_metrics: validate source addr length
Hi Joel,
When you bring issues to this list, please include in the Subject and
start your messages with information on the issue itself - at least the
affected project and vulnerability type when applicable. As a
moderator, I've edited the Subject line to contain such information.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 09:12:46AM +0000, Joel GUITTET wrote:
> I'm working on a medical product actually and have trouble about the CVE-2024-42154. It is regarding NETLINK socket which can be used only locally, but it is classified with "NETWORK" flag. NETWORK flag is annoying because it means more difficult to justify the CVE.
>
> I already ask the NIST why the NETWOKR flag was set for this CVE, they answer me that it's linked to socket and without more public reference they are just setting the NETWORK flag, in case of.
>
> Can I ask you your opinion about this CVE and the pertinence of the NETWORK flag here?
I didn't fully analyze this issue, but at a glance:
1. NIST NVD commonly inflates CVSS scores. You could reasonably dispute
their CVSS vector and they may correct it and the score:
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42154
Base Score: 9.8 CRITICAL
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
2. There are other sources for CVSS vectors/scores, notably Red Hat:
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-42154
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
leading to a score of 2.5. Indeed, they treat this issue as local, not
network, which is probably correct, although some other components of
this CVSS vector look weird to me.
You could use Red Hat as your source of severity scores.
3. The CVE description originates from Linux kernel CNA, which in turn
reuses the commit message:
https://lists.openwall.net/linux-cve-announce/2024/07/30/76
> tcp_metrics: validate source addr length
>
> I don't see anything checking that TCP_METRICS_ATTR_SADDR_IPV4
> is at least 4 bytes long, and the policy doesn't have an entry
> for this attribute at all (neither does it for IPv6 but v6 is
> manually validated).
The code change is:
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_metrics.c
@@ -624,6 +624,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy tcp_metrics_nl_policy[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_MAX + 1] =
[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV4] = { .type = NLA_U32, },
[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV6] = { .type = NLA_BINARY,
.len = sizeof(struct in6_addr), },
+ [TCP_METRICS_ATTR_SADDR_IPV4] = { .type = NLA_U32, },
/* Following attributes are not received for GET/DEL,
* we keep them for reference
*/
It would require more context to review and to assess the bug's impact,
but my _guess_ is it may have been merely over-read potential, so local
infoleak maybe? Besides code review, it could make sense to locate the
corresponding syzbot report, if one exists, and see what type of crash
it was - if it was.
Somehow Red Hat's description lists possibilities worse than over-read,
so either my guess is wrong or they didn't analyze the issue to identify
specific impact:
> A vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel's tcp_metrics subsystem,
> where insufficient validation of the length of the source address for
> TCP metrics could lead to buffer overflows, memory corruption, or
> crashes.
I hope this helps.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
