Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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-2024-26674 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) 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 18th 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-2024-23936
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/lib: Revert to _ASM_EXTABLE_UA() for {get,put}_user() fixups During memory error injection test on kernels >= v6.4, the kernel panics like below. However, this issue couldn't be reproduced on kernels <=…
more
v6.3. mce: [Hardware Error]: CPU 296: Machine Check Exception: f Bank 1: bd80000000100134 mce: [Hardware Error]: RIP 10:<ffffffff821b9776> {__get_user_nocheck_4+0x6/0x20} mce: [Hardware Error]: TSC 411a93533ed ADDR 346a8730040 MISC 86 mce: [Hardware Error]: PROCESSOR 0:a06d0 TIME 1706000767 SOCKET 1 APIC 211 microcode 80001490 mce: [Hardware Error]: Run the above through 'mcelog --ascii' mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check: Data load in unrecoverable area of kernel Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal local machine check The MCA code can recover from an in-kernel #MC if the fixup type is EX_TYPE_UACCESS, explicitly indicating that the kernel is attempting to access userspace memory. However, if the fixup type is EX_TYPE_DEFAULT the only thing that is raised for an in-kernel #MC is a panic. ex_handler_uaccess() would warn if users gave a non-canonical addresses (with bit 63 clear) to {get, put}_user(), which was unexpected. Therefore, commit b19b74bc99b1 ("x86/mm: Rework address range check in get_user() and put_user()") replaced _ASM_EXTABLE_UA() with _ASM_EXTABLE() for {get, put}_user() fixups. However, the new fixup type EX_TYPE_DEFAULT results in a panic. Commit 6014bc27561f ("x86-64: make access_ok() independent of LAM") added the check gp_fault_address_ok() right before the WARN_ONCE() in ex_handler_uaccess() to not warn about non-canonical user addresses due to LAM. With that in place, revert back to _ASM_EXTABLE_UA() for {get,put}_user() exception fixups in order to be able to handle in-kernel MCEs correctly again. [ bp: Massage commit message. ]
- 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.