Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-26828 is a medium-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 33th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-24090
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cifs: fix underflow in parse_server_interfaces() In this loop, we step through the buffer and after each item we check if the size_left is greater than the minimum size we need.…
more
However, the problem is that "bytes_left" is type ssize_t while sizeof() is type size_t. That means that because of type promotion, the comparison is done as an unsigned and if we have negative bytes left the loop continues instead of ending.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 SDLC practices directly prevent integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.