CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: IB/isert: reject login PDUs declaring more data than was received isert_login_recv_done() records how many bytes the HCA actually placed in the login buffer, but nothing compares that against the length the login PDU's BHS declares. isert_rx_login_req() copies min(login_req_len, MAX_KEY_VALUE_PAIRS) bytes into login->req_buf, and the login code then reads the declared length back out of that buffer - for the first PDU in iscsi_target_locate_portal(), payload_length = ntoh24(login_req->dlength); tmpbuf = kmemdup_nul(login->req_buf, payload_length, GFP_KERNEL); and for the ones after it in iscsi_decode_text_input(), reached from iscsi_target_do_login(). login->req_buf is a fixed MAX_KEY_VALUE_PAIRS (8192) byte allocation, so an initiator that declares more than it sends reads off the end of it, before authentication and with the length under its control: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in kmemdup_nul+0x43/0x80 Read of size 8193 at addr ffff8881056a8000 by task iscsi_np/167 __asan_memcpy+0x23/0x60 kmemdup_nul+0x43/0x80 iscsi_target_locate_portal+0x48d/0x1180 iscsi_target_login_thread+0x19a9/0x3350 Allocated by task 167: __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x158/0x370 iscsi_target_login_thread+0x971/0x3350 which belongs to the cache kmalloc-8k of size 8192 allocated 8192-byte region Falsifying the second login PDU instead reaches the other reader, on the same buffer: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in kmemdup_nul+0x43/0x80 Read of size 8193 at addr ffff888104d10000 by task kworker/1:1/50 Workqueue: isert_login_wq iscsi_target_do_login_rx __asan_memcpy+0x23/0x60 kmemdup_nul+0x43/0x80 iscsi_decode_text_input+0xc6/0x11c0 iscsi_target_do_login+0x261/0x1470 iscsi_target_do_login_rx+0x51d/0x7d0 iscsit over TCP is not exposed: iscsit_get_login_rx() validates the declared length with iscsi_target_check_login_request() and then reads exactly that many bytes off the socket, so the declared length governs how much arrives rather than how much is copied out of an already-filled buffer. isert does not call iscsi_target_check_login_request() at all. Reject a login PDU whose declared DataSegmentLength exceeds what was received, in both paths that reach isert_rx_login_req(): isert_get_login_rx() for the first login PDU and isert_login_recv_done() for the ones after it. dlength <= login_req_len is allowed because the received count can include up to three bytes of iSCSI padding. Once the check is in place the copy out can no longer exceed the copy in: the posted login SGE is ISER_RX_PAYLOAD_SIZE, so login_req_len cannot exceed MAX_KEY_VALUE_PAIRS and the min() in isert_rx_login_req() is login_req_len. Like the existing short-PDU check added by 29e7b925ae6d, the reject in isert_login_recv_done() returns without completing login_req_comp, so a malformed subsequent PDU leaves the login to be torn down by the login timer rather than failing immediately. The first-PDU path returns an error and fails straight away. Reproduced on 7.2.0-rc4 with soft-RoCE (rdma_rxe) under KASAN, using an initiator that sends the real key=value payload while declaring 8193 in the BHS, on the first login PDU and on the second in separate runs. The reported read size tracks the declared value exactly; 16384 and 61440 behave the same. Unpatched 3 of 3 runs report on each of the two paths, patched 0 of 3 on both, run alternately in a single session, and a normal login still completes on the patched build.

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	9.1	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H 추가 정보 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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. 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. 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.	416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67