Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2024-39291 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38190
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdgpu: Fix buffer size in gfx_v9_4_3_init_ cp_compute_microcode() and rlc_microcode() The function gfx_v9_4_3_init_microcode in gfx_v9_4_3.c was generating about potential truncation of output when using the snprintf function. The issue was due…
more
to the size of the buffer 'ucode_prefix' being too small to accommodate the maximum possible length of the string being written into it. The string being written is "amdgpu/%s_mec.bin" or "amdgpu/%s_rlc.bin", where %s is replaced by the value of 'chip_name'. The length of this string without the %s is 16 characters. The warning message indicated that 'chip_name' could be up to 29 characters long, resulting in a total of 45 characters, which exceeds the buffer size of 30 characters. To resolve this issue, the size of the 'ucode_prefix' buffer has been reduced from 30 to 15. This ensures that the maximum possible length of the string being written into the buffer will not exceed its size, thus preventing potential buffer overflow and truncation issues. Fixes the below with gcc W=1: drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_4_3.c: In function ‘gfx_v9_4_3_early_init’: drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_4_3.c:379:52: warning: ‘%s’ directive output may be truncated writing up to 29 bytes into a region of size 23 [-Wformat-truncation=] 379 | snprintf(fw_name, sizeof(fw_name), "amdgpu/%s_rlc.bin", chip_name); | ^~ ...... 439 | r = gfx_v9_4_3_init_rlc_microcode(adev, ucode_prefix); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_4_3.c:379:9: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 16 and 45 bytes into a destination of size 30 379 | snprintf(fw_name, sizeof(fw_name), "amdgpu/%s_rlc.bin", chip_name); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_4_3.c:413:52: warning: ‘%s’ directive output may be truncated writing up to 29 bytes into a region of size 23 [-Wformat-truncation=] 413 | snprintf(fw_name, sizeof(fw_name), "amdgpu/%s_mec.bin", chip_name); | ^~ ...... 443 | r = gfx_v9_4_3_init_cp_compute_microcode(adev, ucode_prefix); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_4_3.c:413:9: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 16 and 45 bytes into a destination of size 30 413 | snprintf(fw_name, sizeof(fw_name), "amdgpu/%s_mec.bin", chip_name); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.