In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: bound MDSCapAuth path and fs_name decode in handle_session()
handle_session() decodes the MDSCapAuth records carried by a
CEPH_SESSION_OPEN message (msg_version >= 6). For each record the
match.path and match.fs_name byte strings are read by first decoding a
32-bit length and then copying that many bytes with the bare
ceph_decode_copy(). Unlike the surrounding fields, which all use the
_safe decode variants, these two copies are not preceded by a
ceph_decode_need() bounds check, and the enclosing MDSCapAuth and
MDSCapMatch struct_len fields are skipped rather than enforced as an
upper bound. A length larger than the bytes remaining in the message
front makes ceph_decode_copy() read past the end of the front buffer.
The message front is a dedicated allocation (ceph_msg_new2() ->
kvmalloc), so the over-read runs off that object. A malicious or
compromised MDS can trigger this with the first post-connect message on
mount, with no client-side user interaction; under KASAN it is reported
as a slab-out-of-bounds read in handle_session().
Impact: a malicious MDS can force the kernel client to read up to 4 GiB
past the message front allocation during session setup, crashing the
client (out-of-bounds read).
Switch both copies to ceph_decode_copy_safe(), which performs the
ceph_decode_need() bounds check before the copy and branches to the
existing bad label, matching the rest of the decoder and the error path
that frees the partially decoded cap_auths array.
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