CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: flow_dissector: do not dissect PPPoE PFC frames RFC 2516 Section 7 states that Protocol Field Compression (PFC) is NOT RECOMMENDED for PPPoE. In practice, pppd does not support negotiating PFC for PPPoE sessions, and the flow dissector driver has assumed an uncompressed frame until the blamed commit. During the review process of that commit [1], support for PFC is suggested. However, having a compressed (1-byte) protocol field means the subsequent PPP payload is shifted by one byte, causing 4-byte misalignment for the network header and an unaligned access exception on some architectures. The exception can be reproduced by sending a PPPoE PFC frame to an ethernet interface of a MIPS board, with RPS enabled, even if no PPPoE session is active on that interface: $ 0 : 00000000 80c40000 00000000 85144817 $ 4 : 00000008 00000100 80a75758 81dc9bb8 $ 8 : 00000010 8087ae2c 0000003d 00000000 $12 : 000000e0 00000039 00000000 00000000 $16 : 85043240 80a75758 81dc9bb8 00006488 $20 : 0000002f 00000007 85144810 80a70000 $24 : 81d1bda0 00000000 $28 : 81dc8000 81dc9aa8 00000000 805ead08 Hi : 00009d51 Lo : 2163358a epc : 805e91f0 __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50 ra : 805ead08 __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c Status: 11000403 KERNEL EXL IE Cause : 40800010 (ExcCode 04) BadVA : 85144817 PrId : 0001992f (MIPS 1004Kc) Call Trace: [<805e91f0>] __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50 [<805ead08>] __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c [<805ef330>] get_rps_cpu+0x1b8/0x3fc [<805fca70>] netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x324/0x364 [<805fd120>] napi_complete_done+0x68/0x2a4 [<8058de5c>] mtk_napi_rx+0x228/0xfec [<805fd398>] __napi_poll+0x3c/0x1c4 [<805fd754>] napi_threaded_poll_loop+0x234/0x29c [<805fd848>] napi_threaded_poll+0x8c/0xb0 [<80053544>] kthread+0x104/0x12c [<80002bd8>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c Code: 02d51821 1060045b 00000000 <8c640000> 3084000f 2c820005 144001a2 00042080 8e220000 To reduce the attack surface and maintain performance, do not process PPPoE PFC frames. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220630231016.GA392@debian.home

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE Other	No informations.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. 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.	416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

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