In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv4: udp: Create exceptions before socket matching
Currently, when ICMP Fragmentation Needed and Redirect Message packets
are locally delivered and quote a UDP packet, a FIB nexthop exception
(FNHE) is only created if the kernel can match the UDP packet to an
existing socket.
This behavior allows off-path attackers to conduct a side-channel attack
on the FNHE cache in order to discover the ephemeral port used by a
connected UDP socket.
Commit 6457378fe796 ("ipv4: use siphash instead of Jenkins in
fnhe_hashfun()") and commit 67d6d681e15b ("ipv4: make exception cache
less predictible") tried to mitigate such attacks by making it harder
for attackers to discover hash collisions in the FNHE cache and by
randomizing the number of exceptions a hash bucket can hold,
respectively. Unfortunately, both of the mitigations can be bypassed.
Instead, mitigate such attacks by always creating a FNHE, even before
trying to find a matching socket. Do that by calling ipv4_update_pmtu()
and ipv4_redirect(), the helpers used when the quoted packet did not
originate from a socket.
This means that guesses (right or wrong) from an off-path attacker will
always result in a FNHE being created or updated in the cache that the
attacker can observe.
Pass an oif of 0, in a similar fashion to icmp_err(). This is also the
oif used by the socket path for sockets that are not bound to a device.
Note that this does not allow attackers to create FNHEs that they could
not create before, as both helpers can already be reached with little to
no validation. For example, by sending an ICMP error that quotes an ICMP
Echo Reply or one that quotes a UDP source port that matches a wildcard
socket.
Also note that in the good case (matched socket) the above scheme comes
at the cost of an extra route lookup, as the no socket helpers perform
their own lookup before the one performed by ipv4_sk_update_pmtu() /
ipv4_sk_redirect(). When the two resolve to different nexthops, it also
results in two exceptions being created for the same destination IP. One
in the FNHE cache of the nexthop resolved by the no socket helpers and
another in the FNHE cache of the nexthop used by the socket.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.4 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% 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
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA 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 SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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.
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