CVE-2026-74640 : 詳細

CVE-2026-74640

7.8
/
高
2026-08-22
16h16 +00:00
Local
2026-10-16
20h17 +00:00
特定のCVEの通知
特定のCVEの変更情報をいち早くお届けします。
通知を管理する

CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: FCP: fix OOB write in fcp_meter_ctl_get() fcp_ioctl_set_meter_map() bounds the user-supplied Level Meter map size by the driver's own limit of 255 if (map.map_size < 1 || map.map_size > 255 || map.meter_slots < 1 || map.meter_slots > 255) return -EINVAL; and passes it to fcp_add_new_ctl() as the control's channel count, where it is stored as elem->channels. Every control read writes into struct snd_ctl_elem_value, whose integer array is declared long value[128], so the limit is 128, not 255. fcp_meter_ctl_get() stores one 64-bit word per channel into that array with no bound of its own: for (i = 0; i < elem->channels; i++) { int idx = private->meter_level_map[i]; int value = idx < 0 ? 0 : le32_to_cpu(resp[idx]); ucontrol->value.integer.value[i] = value; } snd_ctl_elem_read_user() serves that object from memdup_user(_control, sizeof(*control)), 1224 bytes on LP64 out of kmalloc-2048. offsetof(struct snd_ctl_elem_value, value) is 72, so element i is written at byte 72 + 8 * i and element 144 already lands past the allocation. At map_size 255 the last store ends at byte 2112, 888 bytes past the object and 64 bytes into the adjacent slab object. The stored words come from the device and meter_level_map[] selects which word lands in which slot, so extent and contents are both controlled. The core does not catch this. snd_ctl_check_elem_info() is reached only from __snd_ctl_elem_info(), which snd_ctl_elem_read() calls under CONFIG_SND_CTL_DEBUG; without that option snd_ctl_skip_validation() is a compile-time true. __snd_ctl_add_replace() validates kcontrol->count and never inspects elem->channels. Installing an oversized map needs CAP_SYS_RAWIO, but the control outlives the hwdep descriptor that created it, so the out-of-bounds stores are issued by any process able to read controls on /dev/snd/controlC0. KASAN on 7.2.0-rc5 (arm64), triggered by an unprivileged control read: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in fcp_meter_ctl_get Write of size 8 at addr ffff000017af04c8 by task fcp_trigger/185 __asan_store8 fcp_meter_ctl_get snd_ctl_elem_read snd_ctl_ioctl Allocated by task 185: memdup_user snd_ctl_ioctl The buggy address is located 0 bytes to the right of allocated 1224-byte region [ffff000017af0000, ffff000017af04c8) Bound the map size by the ABI limit rather than by 255, and bound the store loop at the sink so it cannot run past the value array whatever elem->channels holds. Discovered by XBOW, triaged by Baul Lee

CVE の情報

メトリクス

メトリクス スコア 深刻度 CVSS ベクター 出典
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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

参考資料