CVE-2024-53197
Memory Safety in Linux Kernel 2.6.12 – 4.19.325
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-53197 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 12% 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 (CWE-787) in the Linux kernel ALSA usb-audio driver affecting Extigy and Mbox devices. A malicious or bogus USB device can supply a bNumConfigurations value larger than the size initially allocated by usb_get_configuration for dev->config, leading to subsequent out-of-bounds accesses such as those in usb_destroy_configuration.
A local attacker with the ability to attach a crafted USB device can trigger the flaw without user interaction, resulting in potential arbitrary code execution or memory corruption with high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The referenced stable kernel commits (0b4ea4bfe165, 379d3b9799d9, 62dc01c83fa7, 920a369a9f01, and 9887d859cd60) contain the fix that prevents the oversized configuration value from causing later accesses beyond the allocated buffer.
EPSS remains low, with a current score of 0.0204 and a peak of only 0.0241.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51869
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: usb-audio: Fix potential out-of-bound accesses for Extigy and Mbox devices A bogus device can provide a bNumConfigurations value that exceeds the initial value used in usb_get_configuration for allocating dev->config.…
more
This can lead to out-of-bounds accesses later, e.g. in usb_destroy_configuration.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 09 April 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.