Descriptions du CVE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rds: ib: reject FRMR registration before IB connection is established rds_ib_get_mr() extracts the rds_ib_connection from conn->c_transport_data and passes it to rds_ib_reg_frmr() for FRWR memory registration. On a fresh outgoing connection, ic is allocated in rds_ib_conn_alloc() with i_cm_id = NULL because the connection worker has not yet called rds_ib_conn_path_connect() to create the rdma_cm_id. When sendmsg() with RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP is called on such a connection, the sendmsg path parses the control message before any connection establishment, allowing rds_ib_post_reg_frmr() to dereference ic->i_cm_id->qp and crash the kernel. The existing guard in rds_ib_reg_frmr() only checks for !ic (added in commit 9e630bcb7701), which does not catch this case since ic is allocated early and is always non-NULL once the connection object exists. KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000010-0x0000000000000017] RIP: 0010:rds_ib_post_reg_frmr+0x50e/0x920 Call Trace: rds_ib_post_reg_frmr (net/rds/ib_frmr.c:167) rds_ib_map_frmr (net/rds/ib_frmr.c:252) rds_ib_reg_frmr (net/rds/ib_frmr.c:430) rds_ib_get_mr (net/rds/ib_rdma.c:615) __rds_rdma_map (net/rds/rdma.c:295) rds_cmsg_rdma_map (net/rds/rdma.c:860) rds_sendmsg (net/rds/send.c:1363) ____sys_sendmsg do_syscall_64 Add a check in rds_ib_get_mr() that verifies ic, i_cm_id, and qp are all non-NULL before proceeding with FRMR registration, mirroring the guard already present in rds_ib_post_inv(). Return -ENODEV when the connection is not ready, which the existing error handling in rds_cmsg_send() converts to -EAGAIN for userspace retry and triggers rds_conn_connect_if_down() to start the connection worker.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID	Nom de la faiblesse	Source
CWE-476	NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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 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 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