Linux: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2023-53184 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 356e711640aea6ed145da9407499388b45264cb4, 807ada0e4aa3c9090c66009a99fa530c462012c9, 05d881b85b48c7ac6a7c92ce00aa916c4a84d052 as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.17% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Linux to 356e711640aea6ed145da9407499388b45264cb4 or 807ada0e4aa3c9090c66009a99fa530c462012c9 or 05d881b85b48c7ac6a7c92ce00aa916c4a84d052 or 6.1.43, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | aa5cf8bd1318b6e7d500668b318c07a71cde783b up to, but not including, 356e711640aea6ed145da9407499388b45264cb4; 292f0453b0d021bb1d3f64648bfdfca093512214 up to, but not including, 807ada0e4aa3c9090c66009a99fa530c462012c9; d4d5be94a87872421ea2569044092535aff0b886 up to, but not including, 05d881b85b48c7ac6a7c92ce00aa916c4a84d052; 6.1.42 up to, but not including, 6.1.43; 6.4.7 up to, but not including, 6.4.8 | 356e711640aea6ed145da9407499388b45264cb4, 807ada0e4aa3c9090c66009a99fa530c462012c9, 05d881b85b48c7ac6a7c92ce00aa916c4a84d052, 6.1.43, 6.4.8 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 6.1.42; 6.4.7; 6.5 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | CNA |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64/sme: Set new vector length before reallocating As part of fixing the allocation of the buffer for SVE state when changing SME vector length we introduced an immediate reallocation of the SVE state, this is also done when changing the SVE vector length for consistency. Unfortunately this reallocation is done prior to writing the new vector length to the task struct, meaning the allocation is done with the old vector length and can lead to memory corruption due to an undersized buffer being used. Move the update of the vector length before the allocation to ensure that the new vector length is taken into account. For some reason this isn't triggering any problems when running tests on the arm64 fixes branch (even after repeated tries) but is triggering issues very often after merge into mainline.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.