CVE-2024-50202
Linux Kernel 2.6.30 – 4.19.323
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-50202 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 14th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) and SI-17 (Fail-safe Procedures) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-44704
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: propagate directory read errors from nilfs_find_entry() Syzbot reported that a task hang occurs in vcs_open() during a fuzzing test for nilfs2. The root cause of this problem is that…
more
in nilfs_find_entry(), which searches for directory entries, ignores errors when loading a directory page/folio via nilfs_get_folio() fails. If the filesystem images is corrupted, and the i_size of the directory inode is large, and the directory page/folio is successfully read but fails the sanity check, for example when it is zero-filled, nilfs_check_folio() may continue to spit out error messages in bursts. Fix this issue by propagating the error to the callers when loading a page/folio fails in nilfs_find_entry(). The current interface of nilfs_find_entry() and its callers is outdated and cannot propagate error codes such as -EIO and -ENOMEM returned via nilfs_find_entry(), so fix it together.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires the system to fail to a known safe state on specified failures, limiting the impact of unhandled exceptional conditions.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled or mishandled exceptional conditions.
Requires generation of appropriate error messages on exceptional conditions, directly enforcing correct handling rather than silent or incorrect behavior.
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 explicitly require proper exception and error handling during design and coding.
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 verifies correct handling of exceptional conditions.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly include handling of error and exceptional conditions.