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-2024-56615 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 17th 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-2024-53263
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: fix OOB devmap writes when deleting elements Jordy reported issue against XSKMAP which also applies to DEVMAP - the index used for accessing map entry, due to being a…
more
signed integer, causes the OOB writes. Fix is simple as changing the type from int to u32, however, when compared to XSKMAP case, one more thing needs to be addressed. When map is released from system via dev_map_free(), we iterate through all of the entries and an iterator variable is also an int, which implies OOB accesses. Again, change it to be u32. Example splat below: [ 160.724676] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc8fc2c001000 [ 160.731662] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode [ 160.736876] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page [ 160.742095] PGD 0 P4D 0 [ 160.744678] Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 160.749106] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 520 Comm: kworker/u145:12 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1+ #487 [ 160.757050] Hardware name: Intel Corporation S2600WFT/S2600WFT, BIOS SE5C620.86B.02.01.0008.031920191559 03/19/2019 [ 160.767642] Workqueue: events_unbound bpf_map_free_deferred [ 160.773308] RIP: 0010:dev_map_free+0x77/0x170 [ 160.777735] Code: 00 e8 fd 91 ed ff e8 b8 73 ed ff 41 83 7d 18 19 74 6e 41 8b 45 24 49 8b bd f8 00 00 00 31 db 85 c0 74 48 48 63 c3 48 8d 04 c7 <48> 8b 28 48 85 ed 74 30 48 8b 7d 18 48 85 ff 74 05 e8 b3 52 fa ff [ 160.796777] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000ee1fe38 EFLAGS: 00010202 [ 160.802086] RAX: ffffc8fc2c001000 RBX: 0000000080000000 RCX: 0000000000000024 [ 160.809331] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000024 RDI: ffffc9002c001000 [ 160.816576] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000023 R09: 0000000000000001 [ 160.823823] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 00000000000ee6b2 R12: dead000000000122 [ 160.831066] R13: ffff88810c928e00 R14: ffff8881002df405 R15: 0000000000000000 [ 160.838310] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8897e0c40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 160.846528] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 160.852357] CR2: ffffc8fc2c001000 CR3: 0000000005c32006 CR4: 00000000007726f0 [ 160.859604] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 160.866847] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 160.874092] PKRU: 55555554 [ 160.876847] Call Trace: [ 160.879338] <TASK> [ 160.881477] ? __die+0x20/0x60 [ 160.884586] ? page_fault_oops+0x15a/0x450 [ 160.888746] ? search_extable+0x22/0x30 [ 160.892647] ? search_bpf_extables+0x5f/0x80 [ 160.896988] ? exc_page_fault+0xa9/0x140 [ 160.900973] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30 [ 160.905232] ? dev_map_free+0x77/0x170 [ 160.909043] ? dev_map_free+0x58/0x170 [ 160.912857] bpf_map_free_deferred+0x51/0x90 [ 160.917196] process_one_work+0x142/0x370 [ 160.921272] worker_thread+0x29e/0x3b0 [ 160.925082] ? rescuer_thread+0x4b0/0x4b0 [ 160.929157] kthread+0xd4/0x110 [ 160.932355] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80 [ 160.936079] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50 [ 160.943396] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80 [ 160.950803] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 [ 160.958482] </TASK>
- 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.