Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-52319 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 12th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-52319 is a vulnerability in the Linux kernel's memory management subsystem, specifically affecting the handling of huge pages in hugetlb_no_page(). The issue arises when hugetlb_no_page() passes a fault address that may not be aligned to the huge page size to folio_zero_user(), which in turn can invoke clear_gigantic_page(). This function expects a huge page size-aligned address, and passing an unaligned one can lead to memory corruption or information leakage. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write) with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A local attacker with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this vulnerability without user interaction. By triggering a page fault in a context involving gigantic huge pages, the attacker can cause clear_gigantic_page() to operate on an unaligned address, potentially resulting in arbitrary memory corruption or leakage of sensitive kernel memory contents. The high impact scores across confidentiality, integrity, and availability indicate severe consequences, such as kernel crashes, privilege escalation, or exposure of other processes' data.
The provided references point to kernel patch commits that resolve the issue by ensuring an aligned address is used in clear_gigantic_page() and renaming the parameter from 'addr' to 'addr_hint' for clarity. Security practitioners should apply these patches from the stable kernel branches (e.g., commits 8aca2bc96c833ba695ede7a45ad7784c836a262e and b79b6fe0737f233f0be1465052b7f0e75f324735) to mitigate the vulnerability in affected Linux distributions.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-46254
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: use aligned address in clear_gigantic_page() In current kernel, hugetlb_no_page() calls folio_zero_user() with the fault address. Where the fault address may be not aligned with the huge page size. Then,…
more
folio_zero_user() may call clear_gigantic_page() with the address, while clear_gigantic_page() requires the address to be huge page size aligned. So, this may cause memory corruption or information leak, addtional, use more obvious naming 'addr_hint' instead of 'addr' for clear_gigantic_page().
- 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.