CVE-2024-50200

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2024-11-08. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store

Patch series "maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store", v3.

There has been a nasty yet subtle maple tree corruption bug that appears to have been in existence since the inception of the algorithm.

This bug seems far more likely to happen since commit f8d112a4e657 ("mm/mmap: avoid zeroing vma tree in mmap_region()"), which is the point at which reports started to be submitted concerning this bug.

We were made definitely aware of the bug thanks to the kind efforts of Bert Karwatzki who helped enormously in my being able to track this down and identify the cause of it.

The bug arises when an attempt is made to perform a spanning store across two leaf nodes, where the right leaf node is the rightmost child of the shared parent, AND the store completely consumes the right-mode node.

This results in mas_wr_spanning_store() mitakenly duplicating the new and existing entries at the maximum pivot within the range, and thus maple tree corruption.

The fix patch corrects this by detecting this scenario and disallowing the mistaken duplicate copy.

The fix patch commit message goes into great detail as to how this occurs.

This series also includes a test which reliably reproduces the issue, and asserts that the fix works correctly.

Bert has kindly tested the fix and confirmed it resolved his issues. Also Mikhail Gavrilov kindly reported what appears to be precisely the same bug, which this fix should also resolve.

This patch (of 2):

There has been a subtle bug present in the maple tree implementation from its inception.

This arises from how stores are performed - when a store occurs, it will overwrite overlapping ranges and adjust the tree as necessary to accommodate this.

A range may always ultimately span two leaf nodes. In this instance we walk the two leaf nodes, determine which elements are not overwritten to the left and to the right of the start and end of the ranges respectively and then rebalance the tree to contain these entries and the newly inserted one.

This kind of store is dubbed a 'spanning store' and is implemented by mas_wr_spanning_store().

In order to reach this stage, mas_store_gfp() invokes mas_wr_preallocate(), mas_wr_store_type() and mas_wr_walk() in turn to walk the tree and update the object (mas) to traverse to the location where the write should be performed, determining its store type.

When a spanning store is required, this function returns false stopping at the parent node which contains the target range, and mas_wr_store_type() marks the mas->store_type as wr_spanning_store to denote this fact.

When we go to perform the store in mas_wr_spanning_store(), we first determine the elements AFTER the END of the range we wish to store (that is, to the right of the entry to be inserted) - we do this by walking to the NEXT pivot in the tree (i.e. r_mas.last + 1), starting at the node we have just determined contains the range over which we intend to write.

We then turn our attention to the entries to the left of the entry we are inserting, whose state is represented by l_mas, and copy these into a 'big node', which is a special node which contains enough slots to contain two leaf node's worth of data.

We then copy the entry we wish to store immediately after this - the copy and the insertion of the new entry is performed by mas_store_b_node().

After this we copy the elements to the right of the end of the range which we are inserting, if we have not exceeded the length of the node (i.e. r_mas.offset <= r_mas.end).

Herein lies the bug - under very specific circumstances, this logic can break and corrupt the maple tree.

Consider the following tree:

Height 0 Root Node / \ pivot = 0xffff / \ pivot = ULONG_MAX / ---truncated---

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
The EG Score, 5.5 of 10.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
10th
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

November 8, 2024

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2024-50200(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(16)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux-6.16.1.106-3~deb11u1, 6.1.106-3~deb11u2, 6.1.106-3~deb11u3, 6.1.112-1~deb11u1
  • every version up to 6.1.119-1~deb11u1: fixed in 6.1.119-1~deb11u1
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 6.1.99-1 (30 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.115-1: fixed in 6.1.115-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.11.5-1: fixed in 6.11.5-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.11.5-1: fixed in 6.11.5-1
—

Additional Vendor Advisories

(14)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 32× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 92 of 191 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 8 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 99 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-14 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 17:41 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-12 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  5. 2026-10-11 21:07 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 15:59 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  8. 2026-10-10 19:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  9. 2026-10-09 20:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  10. 2026-10-08 17:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  12. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  13. 2026-10-05 17:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  14. 2026-10-04 23:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  15. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  16. 2026-10-02 16:15 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  18. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  19. 2026-09-29 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  20. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  21. 2026-09-27 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  22. 2026-09-26 22:42 UTCOSV refresh
  23. 2026-09-26 15:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  24. 2026-09-24 14:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  25. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
Show 67 more
  1. 2026-09-22 14:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  2. 2026-09-20 20:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  3. 2026-09-19 15:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  4. 2026-09-18 19:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  5. 2026-09-17 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  6. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  7. 2026-09-16 05:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  8. 2026-09-15 03:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  9. 2026-09-13 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  10. 2026-09-12 14:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  11. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  12. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  13. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  14. 2026-09-08 21:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  15. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  16. 2026-09-07 08:47 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  18. 2026-09-04 13:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  19. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  20. 2026-09-02 14:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  21. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  22. 2026-09-01 04:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  23. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  24. 2026-08-30 01:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  25. 2026-08-28 21:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  26. 2026-08-27 14:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  27. 2026-08-26 14:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  28. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  29. 2026-08-24 14:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  30. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  31. 2026-08-21 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  32. 2026-08-20 22:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  33. 2026-08-20 18:01 UTCOSV refresh
  34. 2026-08-19 17:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  35. 2026-08-18 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  36. 2026-08-17 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  37. 2026-08-16 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  38. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  39. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  40. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  41. 2026-08-12 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  42. 2026-08-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  43. 2026-08-10 23:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  44. 2026-08-09 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  45. 2026-08-08 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  46. 2026-08-07 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  47. 2026-08-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  48. 2026-08-05 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  49. 2026-08-05 11:54 UTCEG score recompute
  50. 2026-08-05 11:54 UTCVendor advisory
  51. 2026-08-05 11:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-gm98-rhpx-pj6g · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  52. 2026-08-04 15:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  53. 2026-08-04 11:35 UTCEG score recompute
  54. 2026-08-04 11:35 UTCVendor advisory
  55. 2026-08-04 11:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-gm98-rhpx-pj6g · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  56. 2026-08-04 10:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  57. 2026-08-03 10:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  58. 2026-08-02 02:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  59. 2026-08-01 04:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  60. 2026-07-31 13:12 UTCOSV refresh
  61. 2026-07-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  62. 2026-07-30 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  63. 2026-07-28 15:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  64. 2026-07-27 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  65. 2026-07-26 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  66. 2026-07-24 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  67. 2026-07-23 14:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2024-50200?
CVE-2024-50200 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 8, 2024. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store Patch series "maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store", v3. There has been a nasty yet subtle maple tree corruption bug that appears to have been in existence…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2024-50200 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2024-50200 was published on November 8, 2024. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 5, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2024-50200 actively exploited?
CVE-2024-50200 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (10th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2024-50200?
CVE-2024-50200 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2024-50200?
A fix for CVE-2024-50200 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2024-50200 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2024-50200

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2024-50200?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.