In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
SUNRPC: Reject krb5 v2 wrap tokens with oversized ec field
gss_krb5_unwrap_v2() sets buf->len to a logical
length, which can be much smaller than head[0].iov_len
(the allocated receive-page capacity). It then calls
xdr_buf_trim() with a trim length derived from the 16-bit
"extra count" (ec) field in the Kerberos v2 token header.
The ec field is authenticated by the post-decrypt memcmp()
against the encrypted header copy, so a randomly-mutated
value is rejected. However, any peer holding a valid GSS
context can legitimately encrypt a token whose ec exceeds
the plaintext length. Per RFC 4121, such a token is
structurally malformed.
Although xdr_buf_trim() now clamps the buf->len subtraction
to avoid unsigned underflow, the buffer is still left in a
semantically invalid state (zero length, inconsistent iov
lengths) when ec is oversized.
Reject these tokens before calling xdr_buf_trim(), giving
callers a well-defined GSS_S_DEFECTIVE_TOKEN error and
keeping the xdr_buf internally consistent. The wrapped blob
begins at a nonzero offset -- both callers pass len as
offset + opaque_len -- so buf->len still counts the offset
bytes that precede the blob. Compare the trim length
against the remaining wrapped segment, buf->len - offset,
rather than the whole buffer; comparing against buf->len
alone leaves an offset-wide window in which an oversized ec
passes the test and xdr_buf_trim() cuts into the bytes ahead
of the blob.
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