ghsa-mxh6-2xpg-m77w
Vulnerability from github
Recent x86 CPUs offer functionality named Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET). A sub-feature of this are Shadow Stacks (CET-SS). CET-SS is a hardware feature designed to protect against Return Oriented Programming attacks. When enabled, traditional stacks holding both data and return addresses are accompanied by so called "shadow stacks", holding little more than return addresses. Shadow stacks aren't writable by normal instructions, and upon function returns their contents are used to check for possible manipulation of a return address coming from the traditional stack.
In particular certain memory accesses need intercepting by Xen. In various cases the necessary emulation involves kind of replaying of the instruction. Such replaying typically involves filling and then invoking of a stub. Such a replayed instruction may raise an exceptions, which is expected and dealt with accordingly.
Unfortunately the interaction of both of the above wasn't right: Recovery involves removal of a call frame from the (traditional) stack. The counterpart of this operation for the shadow stack was missing.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46841"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-20T11:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Recent x86 CPUs offer functionality named Control-flow Enforcement\nTechnology (CET). A sub-feature of this are Shadow Stacks (CET-SS).\nCET-SS is a hardware feature designed to protect against Return Oriented\nProgramming attacks. When enabled, traditional stacks holding both data\nand return addresses are accompanied by so called \"shadow stacks\",\nholding little more than return addresses. Shadow stacks aren\u0027t\nwritable by normal instructions, and upon function returns their\ncontents are used to check for possible manipulation of a return address\ncoming from the traditional stack.\n\nIn particular certain memory accesses need intercepting by Xen. In\nvarious cases the necessary emulation involves kind of replaying of\nthe instruction. Such replaying typically involves filling and then\ninvoking of a stub. Such a replayed instruction may raise an\nexceptions, which is expected and dealt with accordingly.\n\nUnfortunately the interaction of both of the above wasn\u0027t right:\nRecovery involves removal of a call frame from the (traditional) stack.\nThe counterpart of this operation for the shadow stack was missing.\n",
"id": "GHSA-mxh6-2xpg-m77w",
"modified": "2024-11-05T21:30:31Z",
"published": "2024-03-20T15:32:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46841"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZON4TLXG7TG4A2XZG563JMVTGQW4SF3A"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-451.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.