CVE-2024-27414 Affecting kernel-64kb-devel package, versions <6.4.0-150600.23.14.1


Severity

Recommended
0.0
medium
0
10

Based on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server security rating

    Threat Intelligence

    EPSS
    0.04% (14th percentile)

Do your applications use this vulnerable package?

In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.

Test your applications
  • Snyk ID SNYK-SLES156-KERNEL64KBDEVEL-7551375
  • published 23 Jul 2024
  • disclosed 22 Jul 2024

How to fix?

Upgrade SLES:15.6 kernel-64kb-devel to version 6.4.0-150600.23.14.1 or higher.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-64kb-devel package and not the kernel-64kb-devel package as distributed by SLES. See How to fix? for SLES:15.6 relevant fixed versions and status.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

rtnetlink: fix error logic of IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS writing back

In the commit d73ef2d69c0d ("rtnetlink: let rtnl_bridge_setlink checks IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE length"), an adjustment was made to the old loop logic in the function rtnl_bridge_setlink to enable the loop to also check the length of the IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE attribute. However, this adjustment removed the break statement and led to an error logic of the flags writing back at the end of this function.

if (have_flags) memcpy(nla_data(attr), &flags, sizeof(flags)); // attr should point to IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS NLA !!!

Before the mentioned commit, the attr is granted to be IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS. However, this is not necessarily true fow now as the updated loop will let the attr point to the last NLA, even an invalid NLA which could cause overflow writes.

This patch introduces a new variable br_flag to save the NLA pointer that points to IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS and uses it to resolve the mentioned error logic.

CVSS Scores

version 3.1
Expand this section

SUSE

6.3 medium
  • Attack Vector (AV)
    Local
  • Attack Complexity (AC)
    High
  • Privileges Required (PR)
    Low
  • User Interaction (UI)
    None
  • Scope (S)
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality (C)
    None
  • Integrity (I)
    High
  • Availability (A)
    High
Expand this section

Red Hat

5.5 medium