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-2024-50151 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 20th 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-2024-44653
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: client: fix OOBs when building SMB2_IOCTL request When using encryption, either enforced by the server or when using 'seal' mount option, the client will squash all compound request buffers…
more
down for encryption into a single iov in smb2_set_next_command(). SMB2_ioctl_init() allocates a small buffer (448 bytes) to hold the SMB2_IOCTL request in the first iov, and if the user passes an input buffer that is greater than 328 bytes, smb2_set_next_command() will end up writing off the end of @rqst->iov[0].iov_base as shown below: mount.cifs //srv/share /mnt -o ...,seal ln -s $(perl -e "print('a')for 1..1024") /mnt/link BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] Write of size 4116 at addr ffff8881148fcab8 by task ln/859 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 859 Comm: ln Not tainted 6.12.0-rc3 #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-2.fc40 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80 ? smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] print_report+0x156/0x4d9 ? smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] ? __virt_addr_valid+0x145/0x310 ? __phys_addr+0x46/0x90 ? smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] kasan_report+0xda/0x110 ? smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] kasan_check_range+0x10f/0x1f0 __asan_memcpy+0x3c/0x60 smb2_set_next_command.cold+0x1d6/0x24c [cifs] smb2_compound_op+0x238c/0x3840 [cifs] ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 ? kasan_save_free_info+0x3b/0x70 ? vfs_symlink+0x1a1/0x2c0 ? do_symlinkat+0x108/0x1c0 ? __pfx_smb2_compound_op+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? kmem_cache_free+0x118/0x3e0 ? cifs_get_writable_path+0xeb/0x1a0 [cifs] smb2_get_reparse_inode+0x423/0x540 [cifs] ? __pfx_smb2_get_reparse_inode+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? rcu_is_watching+0x20/0x50 ? __kmalloc_noprof+0x37c/0x480 ? smb2_create_reparse_symlink+0x257/0x490 [cifs] ? smb2_create_reparse_symlink+0x38f/0x490 [cifs] smb2_create_reparse_symlink+0x38f/0x490 [cifs] ? __pfx_smb2_create_reparse_symlink+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? find_held_lock+0x8a/0xa0 ? hlock_class+0x32/0xb0 ? __build_path_from_dentry_optional_prefix+0x19d/0x2e0 [cifs] cifs_symlink+0x24f/0x960 [cifs] ? __pfx_make_vfsuid+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_cifs_symlink+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? make_vfsgid+0x6b/0xc0 ? generic_permission+0x96/0x2d0 vfs_symlink+0x1a1/0x2c0 do_symlinkat+0x108/0x1c0 ? __pfx_do_symlinkat+0x10/0x10 ? strncpy_from_user+0xaa/0x160 __x64_sys_symlinkat+0xb9/0xf0 do_syscall_64+0xbb/0x1d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f08d75c13bb
- 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.