In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
platform/x86: hp-bioscfg: pass validated element count to package parsers
The per-type package parsers are handed the wrong element count.
hp_init_bios_package_attribute() validates obj->package.count and then
calls one of the five hp_populate_*_package_data() wrappers (string,
integer, enumeration, ordered list, password). Each wrapper forwards a
count to its hp_populate_*_elements_from_package() parser, but instead
of forwarding the validated obj->package.count it derives the count
from elements[0]. elements[0] is the NAME field and is always an
ACPI_TYPE_STRING, so reading ->package.count from it in fact reads
->string.length through the union acpi_object. The parsers thus bound
themselves against the length of the name string rather than against
the real number of elements in the package.
This is safe today because hp_init_bios_package_attribute() refuses any
package that has fewer than the type's element count, so a parser only
ever runs on a full package and never reads past it regardless of the
bogus bound.
An upcoming change relaxes that check to accept shorter packages. Once
a parser can receive fewer elements than its per-type count, a bound
taken from the name length no longer reflects the array size, and the
"elem < count" loop conditions and "elem + n >= count" sub-loop guards
read past the end of elements[] - an out-of-bounds heap read.
Forward the validated obj->package.count to every *_package_data()
wrapper so the parsers bound themselves against the real package size.
This does not change behaviour for the packages that enumerate
correctly today and is a prerequisite for accepting shorter packages
safely.
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