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-2024-53192 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) 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 15th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51864
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clk: clk-loongson2: Fix potential buffer overflow in flexible-array member access Flexible-array member `hws` in `struct clk_hw_onecell_data` is annotated with the `counted_by()` attribute. This means that when memory is allocated for…
more
this array, the _counter_, which in this case is member `num` in the flexible structure, should be set to the maximum number of elements the flexible array can contain, or fewer. In this case, the total number of elements for the flexible array is determined by variable `clks_num` when allocating heap space via `devm_kzalloc()`, as shown below: 289 struct loongson2_clk_provider *clp; ... 296 for (p = data; p->name; p++) 297 clks_num++; 298 299 clp = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(clp, clk_data.hws, clks_num), 300 GFP_KERNEL); So, `clp->clk_data.num` should be set to `clks_num` or less, and not exceed `clks_num`, as is currently the case. Otherwise, if data is written into `clp->clk_data.hws[clks_num]`, the instrumentation provided by the compiler won't detect the overflow, leading to a memory corruption bug at runtime. Fix this issue by setting `clp->clk_data.num` to `clks_num`.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.