CVE-2024-49880
Linux Kernel 6.8 – 6.10.14
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-2024-49880 is a high-severity Off-by-one Error (CWE-193) 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-2024-43580
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix off by one issue in alloc_flex_gd() Wesley reported an issue: ================================================================== EXT4-fs (dm-5): resizing filesystem from 7168 to 786432 blocks ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/ext4/resize.c:324!…
more
CPU: 9 UID: 0 PID: 3576 Comm: resize2fs Not tainted 6.11.0+ #27 RIP: 0010:ext4_resize_fs+0x1212/0x12d0 Call Trace: __ext4_ioctl+0x4e0/0x1800 ext4_ioctl+0x12/0x20 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x99/0xd0 x64_sys_call+0x1206/0x20d0 do_syscall_64+0x72/0x110 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e ================================================================== While reviewing the patch, Honza found that when adjusting resize_bg in alloc_flex_gd(), it was possible for flex_gd->resize_bg to be bigger than flexbg_size. The reproduction of the problem requires the following: o_group = flexbg_size * 2 * n; o_size = (o_group + 1) * group_size; n_group: [o_group + flexbg_size, o_group + flexbg_size * 2) o_size = (n_group + 1) * group_size; Take n=0,flexbg_size=16 as an example: last:15 |o---------------|--------------n-| o_group:0 resize to n_group:30 The corresponding reproducer is: img=test.img rm -f $img truncate -s 600M $img mkfs.ext4 -F $img -b 1024 -G 16 8M dev=`losetup -f --show $img` mkdir -p /tmp/test mount $dev /tmp/test resize2fs $dev 248M Delete the problematic plus 1 to fix the issue, and add a WARN_ON_ONCE() to prevent the issue from happening again. [ Note: another reproucer which this commit fixes is: img=test.img rm -f $img truncate -s 25MiB $img mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -E nodiscard,lazy_itable_init=0,lazy_journal_init=0 $img truncate -s 3GiB $img dev=`losetup -f --show $img` mkdir -p /tmp/test mount $dev /tmp/test resize2fs $dev 3G umount $dev losetup -d $dev -- TYT ]
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover off-by-one errors in loops, bounds, and calculations before deployment.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed bounds-checking and arithmetic-correctness rules that stop off-by-one mistakes at introduction.
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 prevent off-by-one errors via reviews, static analysis, and testing.
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 off-by-one errors before release.
Secure development life cycle includes requirements and reviews that can catch off-by-one errors.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and input validation to prevent off-by-one errors.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding practices that reduce off-by-one mistakes.
Secure coding directly addresses off-by-one errors through coding standards and peer review.