CVE-2024-53104
Memory Safety in Linux Kernel 2.6.26 – 4.19.324
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-53104 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 in the top 13% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities 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.
The vulnerability is an out-of-bounds write in the Linux kernel's uvcvideo driver within the media subsystem. It stems from uvc_parse_format failing to account for frames of type UVC_VS_UNDEFINED when uvc_parse_streaming calculates the required size of the frames buffer, allowing writes beyond allocated memory. The issue affects systems exposing UVC-compliant video devices to the kernel's USB video class implementation and carries a CVSS score of 7.8 with CWE-787.
A local attacker with low privileges can trigger the flaw by supplying a maliciously crafted UVC video stream or device descriptor, leading to arbitrary memory corruption with high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. No user interaction or elevated permissions are required, and the attack occurs in kernel context during device enumeration or format parsing.
The referenced stable kernel commits (including 1ee9d9122801, 467d84dc78c9, and 575a562f7a3e) implement the fix by explicitly skipping UVC_VS_UNDEFINED frames during parsing, and corresponding updates have been merged into supported mainline and distribution kernels.
EPSS currently stands at 0.1803 with no documented public exploitation at the time of disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51776
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: media: uvcvideo: Skip parsing frames of type UVC_VS_UNDEFINED in uvc_parse_format This can lead to out of bounds writes since frames of this type were not taken into account when calculating…
more
the size of the frames buffer in uvc_parse_streaming.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 05 February 2025
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.