CVE-2024-42115 : Detail

CVE-2024-42115

7.8
/
High
0.02%V4
Local
2024-07-30
07h46 +00:00
2026-08-04
09h28 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

jffs2: Fix potential illegal address access in jffs2_free_inode

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jffs2: Fix potential illegal address access in jffs2_free_inode During the stress testing of the jffs2 file system,the following abnormal printouts were found: [ 2430.649000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0069696969696948 [ 2430.649622] Mem abort info: [ 2430.649829] ESR = 0x96000004 [ 2430.650115] EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits [ 2430.650564] SET = 0, FnV = 0 [ 2430.650795] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 [ 2430.651032] FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault [ 2430.651446] Data abort info: [ 2430.651683] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004 [ 2430.652001] CM = 0, WnR = 0 [ 2430.652558] [0069696969696948] address between user and kernel address ranges [ 2430.653265] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 2430.654512] CPU: 2 PID: 20919 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.15.25-g512f31242bf6 #33 [ 2430.655008] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) [ 2430.655517] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 2430.656142] pc : kfree+0x78/0x348 [ 2430.656630] lr : jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48 [ 2430.657051] sp : ffff800009eebd10 [ 2430.657355] x29: ffff800009eebd10 x28: 0000000000000001 x27: 0000000000000000 [ 2430.658327] x26: ffff000038f09d80 x25: 0080000000000000 x24: ffff800009d38000 [ 2430.658919] x23: 5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a x22: ffff000038f09d80 x21: ffff8000084f0d14 [ 2430.659434] x20: ffff0000bf9a6ac0 x19: 0169696969696940 x18: 0000000000000000 [ 2430.659969] x17: ffff8000b6506000 x16: ffff800009eec000 x15: 0000000000004000 [ 2430.660637] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 00000001000820a1 x12: 00000000000d1b19 [ 2430.661345] x11: 0004000800000000 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffff8000084f0d14 [ 2430.662025] x8 : ffff0000bf9a6b40 x7 : ffff0000bf9a6b48 x6 : 0000000003470302 [ 2430.662695] x5 : ffff00002e41dcc0 x4 : ffff0000bf9aa3b0 x3 : 0000000003470342 [ 2430.663486] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff8000084f0d14 x0 : fffffc0000000000 [ 2430.664217] Call trace: [ 2430.664528] kfree+0x78/0x348 [ 2430.664855] jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48 [ 2430.665233] i_callback+0x24/0x50 [ 2430.665528] rcu_do_batch+0x1ac/0x448 [ 2430.665892] rcu_core+0x28c/0x3c8 [ 2430.666151] rcu_core_si+0x18/0x28 [ 2430.666473] __do_softirq+0x138/0x3cc [ 2430.666781] irq_exit+0xf0/0x110 [ 2430.667065] handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0x98 [ 2430.667447] gic_handle_irq+0xac/0xe8 [ 2430.667739] call_on_irq_stack+0x28/0x54 The parameter passed to kfree was 5a5a5a5a, which corresponds to the target field of the jffs_inode_info structure. It was found that all variables in the jffs_inode_info structure were 5a5a5a5a, except for the first member sem. It is suspected that these variables are not initialized because they were set to 5a5a5a5a during memory testing, which is meant to detect uninitialized memory.The sem variable is initialized in the function jffs2_i_init_once, while other members are initialized in the function jffs2_init_inode_info. The function jffs2_init_inode_info is called after iget_locked, but in the iget_locked function, the destroy_inode process is triggered, which releases the inode and consequently, the target member of the inode is not initialized.In concurrent high pressure scenarios, iget_locked may enter the destroy_inode branch as described in the code. Since the destroy_inode functionality of jffs2 only releases the target, the fix method is to set target to NULL in jffs2_i_init_once.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector 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.

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 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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 4.19.318

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.280

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.222

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.163

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.98

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.39

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.9.9

References