In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ubifs: fix out-of-bounds read in signature length check
ubifs_sb_verify_signature() bounds the on-disk ubifs_sig_node->len field
before handing the signature payload to verify_pkcs7_signature(), but the
check has the wrong sign:
if (le32_to_cpu(signode->len) > snod->len + sizeof(struct ubifs_sig_node))
The signature bytes start sizeof(struct ubifs_sig_node) (UBIFS_SIG_NODE_SZ,
64 bytes) into the node, so the payload is at most
snod->len - sizeof(struct ubifs_sig_node)
bytes long. Adding the header size instead of subtracting it accepts a
declared length up to 2 * UBIFS_SIG_NODE_SZ larger than the node actually
holds -- past the end of c->sbuf, which is vmalloc(c->leb_size).
verify_pkcs7_signature() -> pkcs7_parse_message() -> asn1_ber_decoder()
is then handed that inflated length and reads beyond the allocation while
walking the DER headers. The node length comes straight from the mounted
image, so a crafted signed UBIFS image reaches this via
ubifs_read_superblock() before the signature is cryptographically checked.
snod->len is guaranteed to be >= UBIFS_SIG_NODE_SZ by the node scanner
(c->ranges[UBIFS_SIG_NODE].min_len == UBIFS_SIG_NODE_SZ), so the corrected
subtraction cannot underflow. Legitimately signed images are unaffected: a
correct superblock never declares a signature longer than the node it is
embedded in.
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