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-2024-53193 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 13th 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-2024-51865
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clk: clk-loongson2: Fix memory corruption bug in struct loongson2_clk_provider Some heap space is allocated for the flexible structure `struct clk_hw_onecell_data` and its flexible-array member `hws` through the composite structure `struct…
more
loongson2_clk_provider` in function `loongson2_clk_probe()`, 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); Then some data is written into the flexible array: 350 clp->clk_data.hws[p->id] = hw; This corrupts `clk_lock`, which is the spinlock variable immediately following the `clk_data` member in `struct loongson2_clk_provider`: struct loongson2_clk_provider { void __iomem *base; struct device *dev; struct clk_hw_onecell_data clk_data; spinlock_t clk_lock; /* protect access to DIV registers */ }; The problem is that the flexible structure is currently placed in the middle of `struct loongson2_clk_provider` instead of at the end. Fix this by moving `struct clk_hw_onecell_data clk_data;` to the end of `struct loongson2_clk_provider`. Also, add a code comment to help prevent this from happening again in case new members are added to the structure in the future. This change also fixes the following -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warning: drivers/clk/clk-loongson2.c:32:36: warning: structure containing a flexible array member is not at the end of another structure [-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end]
- 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.