CVE-2024-22365
Linux-Pam ≤ 1.6.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-22365 is a medium-severity Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime (CWE-664) vulnerability in Linux-Pam Linux-Pam. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 38th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-39 (Process Isolation) and SC-4 (Information in Shared System Resources) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19924
Vulnerability Data
linux-pam (aka Linux PAM) before 1.6.0 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (blocked login process) via mkfifo because the openat call (for protect_dir) lacks O_DIRECTORY.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SC-39 enforces separate execution domains so one process cannot corrupt or misuse another process's resources across their lifetimes.
SC-4 prevents unintended information transfer through shared resources, limiting blast radius when a product fails to release or reuse resources correctly.
SI-16 blocks unauthorized code execution in memory, stopping exploitation that commonly follows improper allocation, use-after-free, or deallocation errors.
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.
Information deletion control ensures proper release and sanitization at end of life.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure requirements, checkpoints, secure coding, testing per 8.29, developer training) that reach many but not all lifetime-control defects in CWE-664; a bounded remainder (e.g. certain runtime resource mismanagement or non-software resources) is not covered by the development-lifecycle focus.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including some that could address resource lifetime) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not mandate or perform any removal of the CWE-664 flaw itself from existing or produced code.
Secure architecture principles reduce lifetime control issues but are not specific to them.
Secure coding practices help avoid lifetime control bugs but do not address the full scope.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-664, a pillar-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-471.