CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: slip: reject VJ receive packets on instances with no rstate array slhc_init() accepts rslots == 0 as a valid configuration, with the documented meaning of 'no receive compression'. In that case the allocation loop in slhc_init() is skipped, so comp->rstate stays NULL and comp->rslot_limit stays 0 (from the kzalloc of struct slcompress). The receive helpers do not defend against that configuration. slhc_uncompress() dereferences comp->rstate[x] when the VJ header carries an explicit connection ID, and slhc_remember() later assigns cs = &comp->rstate[...] after only comparing the packet's slot number to comp->rslot_limit. Because rslot_limit is 0, slot 0 passes the range check, and the code dereferences a NULL rstate. The configuration is reachable in-tree through PPP. PPPIOCSMAXCID stores its argument in a signed int, and (val >> 16) uses arithmetic shift. Passing 0xffff0000 therefore sign-extends to -1, so val2 + 1 is 0 and ppp_generic.c ends up calling slhc_init(0, 1). Because /dev/ppp open is gated by ns_capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN), the whole path is reachable from an unprivileged user namespace. Once the malformed VJ state is installed, any inbound VJ-compressed or VJ-uncompressed frame that selects slot 0 crashes the kernel in softirq context: Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] RIP: 0010:slhc_uncompress (drivers/net/slip/slhc.c:519) Call Trace: ppp_receive_nonmp_frame (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2466) ppp_input (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2359) ppp_async_process (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c:492) tasklet_action_common (kernel/softirq.c:926) handle_softirqs (kernel/softirq.c:623) run_ksoftirqd (kernel/softirq.c:1055) smpboot_thread_fn (kernel/smpboot.c:160) kthread (kernel/kthread.c:436) ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:164) Reject the receive side on such instances instead of touching rstate. slhc_uncompress() falls through to its existing 'bad' label, which bumps sls_i_error and enters the toss state. slhc_remember() mirrors that with an explicit sls_i_error increment followed by slhc_toss(); the sls_i_runt counter is not used here because a missing rstate is an internal configuration state, not a runt packet. The transmit path is unaffected: the only in-tree caller that picks rslots from userspace (ppp_generic.c) still supplies tslots >= 1, and slip.c always calls slhc_init(16, 16), so comp->tstate remains valid and slhc_compress() continues to work.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-476	NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	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 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. 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 is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org