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-2024-53142 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 16th 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-2024-51814
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: initramfs: avoid filename buffer overrun The initramfs filename field is defined in Documentation/driver-api/early-userspace/buffer-format.rst as: 37 cpio_file := ALGN(4) + cpio_header + filename + "\0" + ALGN(4) + data ... 55…
more
============= ================== ========================= 56 Field name Field size Meaning 57 ============= ================== ========================= ... 70 c_namesize 8 bytes Length of filename, including final \0 When extracting an initramfs cpio archive, the kernel's do_name() path handler assumes a zero-terminated path at @collected, passing it directly to filp_open() / init_mkdir() / init_mknod(). If a specially crafted cpio entry carries a non-zero-terminated filename and is followed by uninitialized memory, then a file may be created with trailing characters that represent the uninitialized memory. The ability to create an initramfs entry would imply already having full control of the system, so the buffer overrun shouldn't be considered a security vulnerability. Append the output of the following bash script to an existing initramfs and observe any created /initramfs_test_fname_overrunAA* path. E.g. ./reproducer.sh | gzip >> /myinitramfs It's easiest to observe non-zero uninitialized memory when the output is gzipped, as it'll overflow the heap allocated @out_buf in __gunzip(), rather than the initrd_start+initrd_size block. ---- reproducer.sh ---- nilchar="A" # change to "\0" to properly zero terminate / pad magic="070701" ino=1 mode=$(( 0100777 )) uid=0 gid=0 nlink=1 mtime=1 filesize=0 devmajor=0 devminor=1 rdevmajor=0 rdevminor=0 csum=0 fname="initramfs_test_fname_overrun" namelen=$(( ${#fname} + 1 )) # plus one to account for terminator printf "%s%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%08x%s" \ $magic $ino $mode $uid $gid $nlink $mtime $filesize \ $devmajor $devminor $rdevmajor $rdevminor $namelen $csum $fname termpadlen=$(( 1 + ((4 - ((110 + $namelen) & 3)) % 4) )) printf "%.s${nilchar}" $(seq 1 $termpadlen) ---- reproducer.sh ---- Symlink filename fields handled in do_symlink() won't overrun past the data segment, due to the explicit zero-termination of the symlink target. Fix filename buffer overrun by aborting the initramfs FSM if any cpio entry doesn't carry a zero-terminator at the expected (name_len - 1) offset.
- 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.