In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
SUNRPC: Reject short RFC 4121 MIC tokens in gss_krb5_verify_mic_v2
gss_krb5_verify_mic_v2() reads the token ID at ptr[0..1], the flags
byte at ptr[2], and padding at ptr[3..7], then passes
ptr + GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN and cksum_len to gss_krb5_mic_build_sg().
None of these accesses check read_token->len first.
The minimum safe token size is GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN (16) plus
ctx->krb5e->cksum_len (12-24, depending on the enctype). All callers
accept shorter tokens from the wire:
- gss_unwrap_resp_integ() enforces only an upper bound
(offset + len <= rcv_buf->len) before allocating
mic.data = kmalloc(len) and passing it to gss_verify_mic().
A malicious NFS server can therefore supply a short checksum
opaque, producing a small slab allocation that the Kerberos MIC
verifier reads past.
- gss_validate() enforces only len <= RPC_MAX_AUTH_SIZE (400)
before passing the wire-supplied length to
gss_validate_seqno_mic(), which constructs a mic xdr_netobj
and calls gss_verify_mic().
- svcauth_gss_verify_header() enforces only
checksum.len >= XDR_UNIT (4 bytes) before dispatching to
gss_verify_mic().
- svcauth_gss_unwrap_integ() checks only that the checksum fits
in gsd->gsd_scratch.
Add a length guard at the top of gss_krb5_verify_mic_v2(), before any
ptr[] access or scatterlist construction. Well-formed MIC tokens from
gss_krb5_get_mic_v2() already have exactly GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN +
cksum_len bytes, so valid traffic is unaffected.
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