In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
flow_dissector: avoid u16 truncation of skb->len when computing thoff
__skb_flow_dissect() computes key_control->thoff using:
key_control->thoff = min_t(u16, nhoff, skb ? skb->len : hlen);
min_t(u16, ...) casts both arguments to u16 before comparing them.
Whenever skb->len (or hlen) modulo 65536 is smaller than nhoff, the
truncated length wins and thoff is set to a bogus small value, even
when the dissection succeeded. For example, an IPv4/TCP frame with
skb->len == 65540 and nhoff == 34 gets thoff == 4, so callers such as
skb_probe_transport_header() point the transport header inside the
Ethernet header.
Such skbs are not exotic:
- At the time of commit d0c081b49137 ("flow_dissector: properly cap
thoff field"), AF_PACKET with PACKET_VNET_HDR could already build GSO
skbs larger than 64KB (MTU checks are skipped for GSO, and
alloc_skb_with_frags() accepted up to MAX_SKB_FRAGS (17) order-0
pages on top of the linear part).
- BIG TCP now makes skbs larger than 64KB common.
- The following patch makes tun_get_user() dissect IFF_TAP frames
before eth_type_trans() pulls the Ethernet header, so a GSO frame
carrying a 65522..65535 byte L3 packet will be dissected with
skb->len in [65536, 65549].
Compare as u32 instead. If the resulting offset cannot be represented
in the u16 key_control->thoff, cap it to U16_MAX and report the
dissection as failed rather than silently returning a wrong transport
offset. thoff is still set on failure, as some callers (such as
eth_get_headlen()) use it regardless of the return value.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the BOD 26-04 block below.
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.
The score's inputs: 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