Linux: Improper Validation of Array Index
CVE-2024-38568 is a high-severity improper validation of array index 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 3669baf308308385a2ab391324abdde5682af5aa, be1fa711e59c874d049f592aef1d4685bdd22bdf, b5120d322763c15c978bc47beb3b6dff45624304 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 0.23% 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 3669baf308308385a2ab391324abdde5682af5aa or be1fa711e59c874d049f592aef1d4685bdd22bdf or b5120d322763c15c978bc47beb3b6dff45624304 or aa2d3d678895c8eedd003f1473f87d3f06fe6ec7, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Linux Kernel to 6.1.93 or 6.6.33 or 6.8.12 or 6.9.3, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | 66637ab137b44914356a9dc7a9b3f8ebcf0b0695 up to, but not including, 3669baf308308385a2ab391324abdde5682af5aa; 66637ab137b44914356a9dc7a9b3f8ebcf0b0695 up to, but not including, be1fa711e59c874d049f592aef1d4685bdd22bdf; 66637ab137b44914356a9dc7a9b3f8ebcf0b0695 up to, but not including, b5120d322763c15c978bc47beb3b6dff45624304; 66637ab137b44914356a9dc7a9b3f8ebcf0b0695 up to, but not including, aa2d3d678895c8eedd003f1473f87d3f06fe6ec7; 66637ab137b44914356a9dc7a9b3f8ebcf0b0695 up to, but not including, 81bdd60a3d1d3b05e6cc6674845afb1694dd3a0e; 6.0 | 3669baf308308385a2ab391324abdde5682af5aa, be1fa711e59c874d049f592aef1d4685bdd22bdf, b5120d322763c15c978bc47beb3b6dff45624304, aa2d3d678895c8eedd003f1473f87d3f06fe6ec7, 81bdd60a3d1d3b05e6cc6674845afb1694dd3a0e |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 6.0 up to, but not including, 6.1.93; 6.2 up to, but not including, 6.6.33; 6.7 up to, but not including, 6.8.12; 6.9 up to, but not including, 6.9.3 | 6.1.93, 6.6.33, 6.8.12, 6.9.3 |
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: drivers/perf: hisi: hns3: Fix out-of-bound access when valid event group The perf tool allows users to create event groups through following cmd [1], but the driver does not check whether the array index is out of bounds when writing data to the event_group array. If the number of events in an event_group is greater than HNS3_PMU_MAX_HW_EVENTS, the memory write overflow of event_group array occurs. Add array index check to fix the possible array out of bounds violation, and return directly when write new events are written to array bounds. There are 9 different events in an event_group. [1] perf stat -e '{pmu/event1/, ... ,pmu/event9/}
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Validation of Array Index
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, Ada allows the programmer to constrain the values of a variable and languages such as Java and Ruby will allow the programmer to handle exceptions when an out-of-bounds index is accessed.
- Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND.
More Improper Validation of Array Index vulnerabilities (CWE-129)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/3669baf308308385a2ab391324abdde5682af5aa
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/81bdd60a3d1d3b05e6cc6674845afb1694dd3a0e
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/aa2d3d678895c8eedd003f1473f87d3f06fe6ec7
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/b5120d322763c15c978bc47beb3b6dff45624304
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/be1fa711e59c874d049f592aef1d4685bdd22bdf
Recent Improper Validation of Array Index 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.