CVE-2024-41001
Linux Kernel ≤ 6.1.96
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-2024-41001 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) 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 19th 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-2024-39350
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/sqpoll: work around a potential audit memory leak kmemleak complains that there's a memory leak related to connect handling: unreferenced object 0xffff0001093bdf00 (size 128): comm "iou-sqp-455", pid 457, jiffies 4294894164…
more
hex dump (first 32 bytes): 02 00 fa ea 7f 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace (crc 2e481b1a): [<00000000c0a26af4>] kmemleak_alloc+0x30/0x38 [<000000009c30bb45>] kmalloc_trace+0x228/0x358 [<000000009da9d39f>] __audit_sockaddr+0xd0/0x138 [<0000000089a93e34>] move_addr_to_kernel+0x1a0/0x1f8 [<000000000b4e80e6>] io_connect_prep+0x1ec/0x2d4 [<00000000abfbcd99>] io_submit_sqes+0x588/0x1e48 [<00000000e7c25e07>] io_sq_thread+0x8a4/0x10e4 [<00000000d999b491>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 which can can happen if: 1) The command type does something on the prep side that triggers an audit call. 2) The thread hasn't done any operations before this that triggered an audit call inside ->issue(), where we have audit_uring_entry() and audit_uring_exit(). Work around this by issuing a blanket NOP operation before the SQPOLL does anything.
- 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 (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.