Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-26586 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 16th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-23848
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mlxsw: spectrum_acl_tcam: Fix stack corruption When tc filters are first added to a net device, the corresponding local port gets bound to an ACL group in the device. The group…
more
contains a list of ACLs. In turn, each ACL points to a different TCAM region where the filters are stored. During forwarding, the ACLs are sequentially evaluated until a match is found. One reason to place filters in different regions is when they are added with decreasing priorities and in an alternating order so that two consecutive filters can never fit in the same region because of their key usage. In Spectrum-2 and newer ASICs the firmware started to report that the maximum number of ACLs in a group is more than 16, but the layout of the register that configures ACL groups (PAGT) was not updated to account for that. It is therefore possible to hit stack corruption [1] in the rare case where more than 16 ACLs in a group are required. Fix by limiting the maximum ACL group size to the minimum between what the firmware reports and the maximum ACLs that fit in the PAGT register. Add a test case to make sure the machine does not crash when this condition is hit. [1] Kernel panic - not syncing: stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_update+0x116/0x120 [...] dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50 panic+0x305/0x330 __stack_chk_fail+0x15/0x20 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_update+0x116/0x120 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_region_attach+0x69/0x110 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_vchunk_get+0x492/0xa20 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_ventry_add+0x25/0xe0 mlxsw_sp_acl_rule_add+0x47/0x240 mlxsw_sp_flower_replace+0x1a9/0x1d0 tc_setup_cb_add+0xdc/0x1c0 fl_hw_replace_filter+0x146/0x1f0 fl_change+0xc17/0x1360 tc_new_tfilter+0x472/0xb90 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x313/0x3b0 netlink_rcv_skb+0x58/0x100 netlink_unicast+0x244/0x390 netlink_sendmsg+0x1e4/0x440 ____sys_sendmsg+0x164/0x260 ___sys_sendmsg+0x9a/0xe0 __sys_sendmsg+0x7a/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x40/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
- 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 (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.