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-2024-46853 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) 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 15th 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-2024-42114
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: spi: nxp-fspi: fix the KASAN report out-of-bounds bug Change the memcpy length to fix the out-of-bounds issue when writing the data that is not 4 byte aligned to TX FIFO.…
more
To reproduce the issue, write 3 bytes data to NOR chip. dd if=3b of=/dev/mtd0 [ 36.926103] ================================================================== [ 36.933409] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in nxp_fspi_exec_op+0x26ec/0x2838 [ 36.940514] Read of size 4 at addr ffff00081037c2a0 by task dd/455 [ 36.946721] [ 36.948235] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 455 Comm: dd Not tainted 6.11.0-rc5-gc7b0e37c8434 #1070 [ 36.956185] Hardware name: Freescale i.MX8QM MEK (DT) [ 36.961260] Call trace: [ 36.963723] dump_backtrace+0x90/0xe8 [ 36.967414] show_stack+0x18/0x24 [ 36.970749] dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 [ 36.974451] print_report+0x114/0x5cc [ 36.978151] kasan_report+0xa4/0xf0 [ 36.981670] __asan_report_load_n_noabort+0x1c/0x28 [ 36.986587] nxp_fspi_exec_op+0x26ec/0x2838 [ 36.990800] spi_mem_exec_op+0x8ec/0xd30 [ 36.994762] spi_mem_no_dirmap_read+0x190/0x1e0 [ 36.999323] spi_mem_dirmap_write+0x238/0x32c [ 37.003710] spi_nor_write_data+0x220/0x374 [ 37.007932] spi_nor_write+0x110/0x2e8 [ 37.011711] mtd_write_oob_std+0x154/0x1f0 [ 37.015838] mtd_write_oob+0x104/0x1d0 [ 37.019617] mtd_write+0xb8/0x12c [ 37.022953] mtdchar_write+0x224/0x47c [ 37.026732] vfs_write+0x1e4/0x8c8 [ 37.030163] ksys_write+0xec/0x1d0 [ 37.033586] __arm64_sys_write+0x6c/0x9c [ 37.037539] invoke_syscall+0x6c/0x258 [ 37.041327] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x160/0x22c [ 37.046244] do_el0_svc+0x44/0x5c [ 37.049589] el0_svc+0x38/0x78 [ 37.052681] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x13c/0x158 [ 37.057077] el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194 [ 37.060775] [ 37.062274] Allocated by task 455: [ 37.065701] kasan_save_stack+0x2c/0x54 [ 37.069570] kasan_save_track+0x20/0x3c [ 37.073438] kasan_save_alloc_info+0x40/0x54 [ 37.077736] __kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xb8 [ 37.081515] __kmalloc_noprof+0x158/0x2f8 [ 37.085563] mtd_kmalloc_up_to+0x120/0x154 [ 37.089690] mtdchar_write+0x130/0x47c [ 37.093469] vfs_write+0x1e4/0x8c8 [ 37.096901] ksys_write+0xec/0x1d0 [ 37.100332] __arm64_sys_write+0x6c/0x9c [ 37.104287] invoke_syscall+0x6c/0x258 [ 37.108064] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x160/0x22c [ 37.112972] do_el0_svc+0x44/0x5c [ 37.116319] el0_svc+0x38/0x78 [ 37.119401] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x13c/0x158 [ 37.123788] el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194 [ 37.127474] [ 37.128977] The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff00081037c2a0 [ 37.128977] which belongs to the cache kmalloc-8 of size 8 [ 37.141177] The buggy address is located 0 bytes inside of [ 37.141177] allocated 3-byte region [ffff00081037c2a0, ffff00081037c2a3) [ 37.153465] [ 37.154971] The buggy address belongs to the physical page: [ 37.160559] page: refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x89037c [ 37.168596] flags: 0xbfffe0000000000(node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1ffff) [ 37.175149] page_type: 0xfdffffff(slab) [ 37.179021] raw: 0bfffe0000000000 ffff000800002500 dead000000000122 0000000000000000 [ 37.186788] raw: 0000000000000000 0000000080800080 00000001fdffffff 0000000000000000 [ 37.194553] page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected [ 37.200144] [ 37.201647] Memory state around the buggy address: [ 37.206460] ffff00081037c180: fa fc fc fc fa fc fc fc fa fc fc fc fa fc fc fc [ 37.213701] ffff00081037c200: fa fc fc fc 05 fc fc fc 03 fc fc fc 02 fc fc fc [ 37.220946] >ffff00081037c280: 06 fc fc fc 03 fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 37.228186] ^ [ 37.232473] ffff00081037c300: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 37.239718] ffff00081037c380: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc [ 37.246962] ============================================================== ---truncated---
- 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 fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.