Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-49888 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) 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 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-43588
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix a sdiv overflow issue Zac Ecob reported a problem where a bpf program may cause kernel crash due to the following error: Oops: divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT…
more
SMP KASAN PTI The failure is due to the below signed divide: LLONG_MIN/-1 where LLONG_MIN equals to -9,223,372,036,854,775,808. LLONG_MIN/-1 is supposed to give a positive number 9,223,372,036,854,775,808, but it is impossible since for 64-bit system, the maximum positive number is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. On x86_64, LLONG_MIN/-1 will cause a kernel exception. On arm64, the result for LLONG_MIN/-1 is LLONG_MIN. Further investigation found all the following sdiv/smod cases may trigger an exception when bpf program is running on x86_64 platform: - LLONG_MIN/-1 for 64bit operation - INT_MIN/-1 for 32bit operation - LLONG_MIN%-1 for 64bit operation - INT_MIN%-1 for 32bit operation where -1 can be an immediate or in a register. On arm64, there are no exceptions: - LLONG_MIN/-1 = LLONG_MIN - INT_MIN/-1 = INT_MIN - LLONG_MIN%-1 = 0 - INT_MIN%-1 = 0 where -1 can be an immediate or in a register. Insn patching is needed to handle the above cases and the patched codes produced results aligned with above arm64 result. The below are pseudo codes to handle sdiv/smod exceptions including both divisor -1 and divisor 0 and the divisor is stored in a register. sdiv: tmp = rX tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1] if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L2 if tmp == 0 goto L1 rY = 0 L1: rY = -rY; goto L3 L2: rY /= rX L3: smod: tmp = rX tmp += 1 /* [-1, 0] -> [0, 1] if tmp >(unsigned) 1 goto L1 if tmp == 1 (is64 ? goto L2 : goto L3) rY = 0; goto L2 L1: rY %= rX L2: goto L4 // only when !is64 L3: wY = wY // only when !is64 L4: [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/tPJLTEh7S_DxFEqAI2Ji5MBSoZVg7_G-Py2iaZpAaWtM961fFTWtsnlzwvTbzBzaUzwQAoNATXKUlt0LZOFgnDcIyKCswAnAGdUF3LBrhGQ=@protonmail.com/
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.