In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: block non-SAVEFH ops after FOREIGN PUTFH to prevent NULL deref
When CONFIG_NFSD_V4_2_INTER_SSC is enabled, nfsd4_putfh() can return
success with fh_dentry and fh_export both NULL if fh_verify() returns
nfserr_stale and putfh->no_verify is true. The NFSD4_FH_FOREIGN flag
is set, but the compound dispatch loop only uses this flag to bypass
the nfserr_nofilehandle check -- it does not prevent subsequent ops
from running with a NULL fh_dentry.
A remote client can exploit this by crafting a COMPOUND that includes
an inter-SSC COPY (which causes check_if_stalefh_allowed() to set
no_verify=true on the saved PUTFH) with an additional op inserted
between the source PUTFH and SAVEFH. For example, SETATTR calls
fh_want_write() which dereferences fh_export->ex_path.mnt without
calling fh_verify() first, causing a NULL pointer dereference in the
nfsd kthread.
Fix this by gating the dispatch loop: when NFSD4_FH_FOREIGN is set
and fh_dentry is NULL, only OP_SAVEFH (needed for the inter-SSC flow)
and ops with ALLOWED_WITHOUT_FH (which don't need a resolved
filehandle) may proceed. All other ops receive nfserr_stale, per
RFC 7862 Section 15.2.3 which specifies that foreign filehandle
validation is deferred to the consuming operation and NFS4ERR_STALE
returned at that point.
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