Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-42231

Linux Kernel 6.7 – 6.9.9

Published
30 July 2024
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0018 8th percentile
Risk Priority 41 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-42231 is a medium-severity Incorrect Calculation (CWE-682) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 8th 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

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: zoned: fix calc_available_free_space() for zoned mode calc_available_free_space() returns the total size of metadata (or system) block groups, which can be allocated from unallocated disk space. The logic is wrong…

more

on zoned mode in two places. First, the calculation of data_chunk_size is wrong. We always allocate one zone as one chunk, and no partial allocation of a zone. So, we should use zone_size (= data_sinfo->chunk_size) as it is. Second, the result "avail" may not be zone aligned. Since we always allocate one zone as one chunk on zoned mode, returning non-zone size aligned bytes will result in less pressure on the async metadata reclaim process. This is serious for the nearly full state with a large zone size device. Allowing over-commit too much will result in less async reclaim work and end up in ENOSPC. We can align down to the zone size to avoid that.

CWE(s)
CWE-682

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
attack.mitre.org →
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-41011Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-2163Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-47748Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-1118Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-43900Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-1195Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-35986Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-42285Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-2985Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-50114Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
6.10 · 6.7 — 6.9.9

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V15.2.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises calculations and can discover incorrect or unintended results used in security decisions.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring documented development processes and standards can enforce coding rules and tool usage that reduce introduction of calculation errors.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

Engineering principles applied during design and implementation can require verified algorithms and safe arithmetic that structurally avoid incorrect calculation results.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent incorrect calculations via reviews, testing, and verification in security-critical code.

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect calculation flaws before deployment.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates verification steps that catch incorrect calculations before they reach production.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements can explicitly call for numeric accuracy and bounds checking.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
degrades

Secure architecture principles include input validation and safe arithmetic design that reduce calculation errors.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards directly prohibit unsafe arithmetic and require defensive checks against incorrect results.

References