ghsa-r7cm-47vv-77vj
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-14 03:10
Modified
2022-05-14 03:10
Severity ?
7.0 (High) - CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Details

Linux kernel: Exploitable memory corruption due to UFO to non-UFO path switch. When building a UFO packet with MSG_MORE __ip_append_data() calls ip_ufo_append_data() to append. However in between two send() calls, the append path can be switched from UFO to non-UFO one, which leads to a memory corruption. In case UFO packet lengths exceeds MTU, copy = maxfraglen - skb->len becomes negative on the non-UFO path and the branch to allocate new skb is taken. This triggers fragmentation and computation of fraggap = skb_prev->len - maxfraglen. Fraggap can exceed MTU, causing copy = datalen - transhdrlen - fraggap to become negative. Subsequently skb_copy_and_csum_bits() writes out-of-bounds. A similar issue is present in IPv6 code. The bug was introduced in e89e9cf539a2 ("[IPv4/IPv6]: UFO Scatter-gather approach") on Oct 18 2005.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-1000112"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-362"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-10-05T01:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Linux kernel: Exploitable memory corruption due to UFO to non-UFO path switch. When building a UFO packet with MSG_MORE __ip_append_data() calls ip_ufo_append_data() to append. However in between two send() calls, the append path can be switched from UFO to non-UFO one, which leads to a memory corruption. In case UFO packet lengths exceeds MTU, copy = maxfraglen - skb-\u003elen becomes negative on the non-UFO path and the branch to allocate new skb is taken. This triggers fragmentation and computation of fraggap = skb_prev-\u003elen - maxfraglen. Fraggap can exceed MTU, causing copy = datalen - transhdrlen - fraggap to become negative. Subsequently skb_copy_and_csum_bits() writes out-of-bounds. A similar issue is present in IPv6 code. The bug was introduced in e89e9cf539a2 (\"[IPv4/IPv6]: UFO Scatter-gather approach\") on Oct 18 2005.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7cm-47vv-77vj",
  "modified": "2022-05-14T03:10:21Z",
  "published": "2022-05-14T03:10:21Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000112"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2918"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2930"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2931"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3200"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1931"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1932"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4159"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/xairy/kernel-exploits/tree/master/CVE-2017-1000112"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/45147"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q3/277"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3981"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100262"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039162"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.