Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-52866 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-59579
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: uclogic: Fix user-memory-access bug in uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks() When CONFIG_HID_UCLOGIC=y and CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, launch kernel and then the below user-memory-access bug occurs. In hid_test_uclogic_params_cleanup_event_hooks(),it call uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks() with the first arg=NULL, so when…
more
it calls uclogic_params_ugee_v2_has_battery(), the hid_get_drvdata() will access hdev->dev with hdev=NULL, which will cause below user-memory-access. So add a fake_device with quirks member and call hid_set_drvdata() to assign hdev->dev->driver_data which avoids the null-ptr-def bug for drvdata->quirks in uclogic_params_ugee_v2_has_battery(). After applying this patch, the below user-memory-access bug never occurs. general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000329: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN KASAN: probably user-memory-access in range [0x0000000000001948-0x000000000000194f] CPU: 5 PID: 2189 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G B W N 6.6.0-rc2+ #30 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks+0x87/0x600 Code: f3 f3 65 48 8b 14 25 28 00 00 00 48 89 54 24 60 31 d2 48 89 fa c7 44 24 30 00 00 00 00 48 c7 44 24 28 02 f8 02 01 48 c1 ea 03 <80> 3c 02 00 0f 85 2c 04 00 00 48 8b 9d 48 19 00 00 48 b8 00 00 00 RSP: 0000:ffff88810679fc88 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000329 RSI: ffff88810679fd88 RDI: 0000000000001948 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1020f639f0 R10: ffff888107b1cf87 R11: 0000000000000400 R12: 1ffff11020cf3f92 R13: ffff88810679fd88 R14: ffff888100b97b08 R15: ffff8881030bb080 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888119e80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000005286001 CR4: 0000000000770ee0 DR0: ffffffff8fdd6cf4 DR1: ffffffff8fdd6cf5 DR2: ffffffff8fdd6cf6 DR3: ffffffff8fdd6cf7 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000600 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? die_addr+0x3d/0xa0 ? exc_general_protection+0x144/0x220 ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x22/0x30 ? uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks+0x87/0x600 ? sched_clock_cpu+0x69/0x550 ? uclogic_parse_ugee_v2_desc_gen_params+0x70/0x70 ? load_balance+0x2950/0x2950 ? rcu_trc_cmpxchg_need_qs+0x67/0xa0 hid_test_uclogic_params_cleanup_event_hooks+0x9e/0x1a0 ? uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks+0x600/0x600 ? __switch_to+0x5cf/0xe60 ? migrate_enable+0x260/0x260 ? __kthread_parkme+0x83/0x150 ? kunit_try_run_case_cleanup+0xe0/0xe0 kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 ? kunit_try_catch_throw+0x80/0x80 kthread+0x2b5/0x380 ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 </TASK> Modules linked in: Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- RIP: 0010:uclogic_params_ugee_v2_init_event_hooks+0x87/0x600 Code: f3 f3 65 48 8b 14 25 28 00 00 00 48 89 54 24 60 31 d2 48 89 fa c7 44 24 30 00 00 00 00 48 c7 44 24 28 02 f8 02 01 48 c1 ea 03 <80> 3c 02 00 0f 85 2c 04 00 00 48 8b 9d 48 19 00 00 48 b8 00 00 00 RSP: 0000:ffff88810679fc88 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000329 RSI: ffff88810679fd88 RDI: 0000000000001948 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1020f639f0 R10: ffff888107b1cf87 R11: 0000000000000400 R12: 1ffff11020cf3f92 R13: ffff88810679fd88 R14: ffff888100b97b08 R15: ffff8881030bb080 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888119e80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000005286001 CR4: 0000000000770ee0 DR0: ffffffff8fdd6cf4 DR1: ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.