In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
SUNRPC: harden gss_unwrap_resp_priv length checks
gss_unwrap_resp_priv() validates the RPCSEC_GSS opaque length with
offset = (u8 *)(p) - (u8 *)head->iov_base;
if (offset + opaque_len > rcv_buf->len)
goto unwrap_failed;
maj_stat = gss_unwrap(ctx->gc_gss_ctx, offset,
offset + opaque_len, rcv_buf);
Both operands are u32 and the sum is computed in u32. A reply with
opaque_len near 0xffffffff makes offset + opaque_len wrap to a small
value that is below rcv_buf->len, so the bound check passes and
gss_unwrap() is called with end < begin. The check also lacks a
lower bound, so any opaque_len in [0, GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN) is
accepted and forwarded to gss_krb5_unwrap_v2(), whose pre-decrypt
header reads at ptr+4 and ptr+6 then run past the token.
A krb5p NFS server returning a crafted RPCSEC_GSS reply can drive
the client into out-of-bounds reads in gss_krb5_unwrap_v2() and the
rotate_left() loop that follows.
Fix by replacing the single combined check with three guards that
are safe in u32 arithmetic and that enforce the RFC 4121 minimum
outer token length:
if (offset > rcv_buf->len)
goto unwrap_failed;
if (opaque_len > rcv_buf->len - offset)
goto unwrap_failed;
if (opaque_len < GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN)
goto unwrap_failed;
The first guard makes the subtraction in the second guard
unconditionally safe; offset is derived from a successful
xdr_inline_decode() in the head kvec, so in practice it already
satisfies the bound. The floor mirrors the server-side check added
in commit 5b757c2e57a5 ("SUNRPC: svcauth_gss: enforce krb5 token
minimum length").
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