In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: fix heap overflow in NFSv4.0 LOCK replay cache
The NFSv4.0 replay cache uses a fixed 112-byte inline buffer
(rp_ibuf[NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE]) to store encoded operation responses.
This size was calculated based on OPEN responses and does not account
for LOCK denied responses, which include the conflicting lock owner as
a variable-length field up to 1024 bytes (NFS4_OPAQUE_LIMIT).
When a LOCK operation is denied due to a conflict with an existing lock
that has a large owner, nfsd4_encode_operation() copies the full encoded
response into the undersized replay buffer via read_bytes_from_xdr_buf()
with no bounds check. This results in a slab-out-of-bounds write of up
to 944 bytes past the end of the buffer, corrupting adjacent heap memory.
This can be triggered remotely by an unauthenticated attacker with two
cooperating NFSv4.0 clients: one sets a lock with a large owner string,
then the other requests a conflicting lock to provoke the denial.
We could fix this by increasing NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE to allow for a full
opaque, but that would increase the size of every stateowner, when most
lockowners are not that large.
Instead, fix this by checking the encoded response length against
NFSD4_REPLAY_ISIZE before copying into the replay buffer. If the
response is too large, set rp_buflen to 0 to skip caching the replay
payload. The status is still cached, and the client already received the
correct response on the original request.
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