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-2024-39506 is a medium-severity NULL Pointer Dereference (CWE-476) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 21th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38032
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liquidio: Adjust a NULL pointer handling path in lio_vf_rep_copy_packet In lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() pg_info->page is compared to a NULL value, but then it is unconditionally passed to skb_add_rx_frag() which looks strange and…
more
could lead to null pointer dereference. lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() call trace looks like: octeon_droq_process_packets octeon_droq_fast_process_packets octeon_droq_dispatch_pkt octeon_create_recv_info ...search in the dispatch_list... ->disp_fn(rdisp->rinfo, ...) lio_vf_rep_pkt_recv(struct octeon_recv_info *recv_info, ...) In this path there is no code which sets pg_info->page to NULL. So this check looks unneeded and doesn't solve potential problem. But I guess the author had reason to add a check and I have no such card and can't do real test. In addition, the code in the function liquidio_push_packet() in liquidio/lio_core.c does exactly the same. Based on this, I consider the most acceptable compromise solution to adjust this issue by moving skb_add_rx_frag() into conditional scope. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
- 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 static analysis) directly finds null-dereference bugs before deployment.
Documented development standards and tools can enforce null-safety rules and safe pointer usage.
Engineering principles can mandate defensive coding such as explicit null checks before dereference.
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 (static analysis, code review, safe coding standards) directly prevent NULL dereference bugs during development.
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 can detect NULL dereference defects before release.
Secure SDLC mandates defensive coding practices that can prevent NULL dereferences.
Application security requirements can specify input validation and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive design that avoids unsafe pointer use.
Secure coding standards directly require NULL-pointer checks and safe dereference patterns.