CVE-2022-49899 : Détail

CVE-2022-49899

5.5
/
Moyen
0.01%V4
Local
2025-05-01
14h10 +00:00
2025-05-04
08h48 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

fscrypt: stop using keyrings subsystem for fscrypt_master_key

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fscrypt: stop using keyrings subsystem for fscrypt_master_key The approach of fs/crypto/ internally managing the fscrypt_master_key structs as the payloads of "struct key" objects contained in a "struct key" keyring has outlived its usefulness. The original idea was to simplify the code by reusing code from the keyrings subsystem. However, several issues have arisen that can't easily be resolved: - When a master key struct is destroyed, blk_crypto_evict_key() must be called on any per-mode keys embedded in it. (This started being the case when inline encryption support was added.) Yet, the keyrings subsystem can arbitrarily delay the destruction of keys, even past the time the filesystem was unmounted. Therefore, currently there is no easy way to call blk_crypto_evict_key() when a master key is destroyed. Currently, this is worked around by holding an extra reference to the filesystem's request_queue(s). But it was overlooked that the request_queue reference is *not* guaranteed to pin the corresponding blk_crypto_profile too; for device-mapper devices that support inline crypto, it doesn't. This can cause a use-after-free. - When the last inode that was using an incompletely-removed master key is evicted, the master key removal is completed by removing the key struct from the keyring. Currently this is done via key_invalidate(). Yet, key_invalidate() takes the key semaphore. This can deadlock when called from the shrinker, since in fscrypt_ioctl_add_key(), memory is allocated with GFP_KERNEL under the same semaphore. - More generally, the fact that the keyrings subsystem can arbitrarily delay the destruction of keys (via garbage collection delay, or via random processes getting temporary key references) is undesirable, as it means we can't strictly guarantee that all secrets are ever wiped. - Doing the master key lookups via the keyrings subsystem results in the key_permission LSM hook being called. fscrypt doesn't want this, as all access control for encrypted files is designed to happen via the files themselves, like any other files. The workaround which SELinux users are using is to change their SELinux policy to grant key search access to all domains. This works, but it is an odd extra step that shouldn't really have to be done. The fix for all these issues is to change the implementation to what I should have done originally: don't use the keyrings subsystem to keep track of the filesystem's fscrypt_master_key structs. Instead, just store them in a regular kernel data structure, and rework the reference counting, locking, and lifetime accordingly. Retain support for RCU-mode key lookups by using a hash table. Replace fscrypt_sb_free() with fscrypt_sb_delete(), which releases the keys synchronously and runs a bit earlier during unmount, so that block devices are still available. A side effect of this patch is that neither the master keys themselves nor the filesystem keyrings will be listed in /proc/keys anymore. ("Master key users" and the master key users keyrings will still be listed.) However, this was mostly an implementation detail, and it was intended just for debugging purposes. I don't know of anyone using it. This patch does *not* change how "master key users" (->mk_users) works; that still uses the keyrings subsystem. That is still needed for key quotas, and changing that isn't necessary to solve the issues listed above. If we decide to change that too, it would be a separate patch. I've marked this as fixing the original commit that added the fscrypt keyring, but as noted above the most important issue that this patch fixes wasn't introduced until the addition of inline encryption support.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE Other No informations.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur 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

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 est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.4 To (excluding) 5.10.154

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.78

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.0.8

Références

Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.