CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: fix ip_rt_bug race in icmp_route_lookup reverse path icmp_route_lookup() performs multiple route lookups to find a suitable route for sending ICMP error messages, with special handling for XFRM (IPsec) policies. The lookup sequence is: 1. First, lookup output route for ICMP reply (dst = original src) 2. Pass through xfrm_lookup() for policy check 3. If blocked (-EPERM) or dst is not local, enter "reverse path" 4. In reverse path, call xfrm_decode_session_reverse() to get fl4_dec which reverses the original packet's flow (saddr<->daddr swapped) 5. If fl4_dec.saddr is local (we are the original destination), use __ip_route_output_key() for output route lookup 6. If fl4_dec.saddr is NOT local (we are a forwarding node), use ip_route_input() to simulate the reverse packet's input path 7. Finally, pass rt2 through xfrm_lookup() with XFRM_LOOKUP_ICMP flag The bug occurs in step 6: ip_route_input() is called with fl4_dec.daddr (original packet's source) as destination. If this address becomes local between the initial check and ip_route_input() call (e.g., due to concurrent "ip addr add"), ip_route_input() returns a LOCAL route with dst.output set to ip_rt_bug. This route is then used for ICMP output, causing dst_output() to call ip_rt_bug(), triggering a WARN_ON: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: net/ipv4/route.c:1275 at ip_rt_bug+0x21/0x30, CPU#1 Call Trace: ip_push_pending_frames+0x202/0x240 icmp_push_reply+0x30d/0x430 __icmp_send+0x1149/0x24f0 ip_options_compile+0xa2/0xd0 ip_rcv_finish_core+0x829/0x1950 ip_rcv+0x2d7/0x420 __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x185/0x1f0 netif_receive_skb+0x90/0x450 tun_get_user+0x3413/0x3fb0 tun_chr_write_iter+0xe4/0x220 ... Fix this by checking rt2->rt_type after ip_route_input(). If it's RTN_LOCAL, the route cannot be used for output, so treat it as an error. The reproducer requires kernel modification to widen the race window, making it unsuitable as a selftest. It is available at: https://gist.github.com/mrpre/eae853b72ac6a750f5d45d64ddac1e81

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-362	Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	4.7	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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