Linux Kernel: security vulnerability (CVE-2024-26837)
Published Sources: SUSE, Red Hat, BSI, EUVD, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
Update Linux Kernel to version 6.1.80, Linux Kernel to version 6.6.19, Linux Kernel to version 6.7.7.
- Affected
- Linux Kernel
lt 5.13..6.1.80 - Linux Kernel
lt 6.2..6.6.19 - Linux Kernel
lt 6.7..6.7.7
- Linux Kernel
- Fixed in
- Linux Kernel
6.1.80 - Linux Kernel
6.6.19 - Linux Kernel
6.7.7 - Linux Kernel
6.8
- Linux Kernel
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
4.7
XIEM Effective CVSS
Highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
4.7
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: SUSE, Red Hat, BSI, EUVD, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 6.1
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 28.64 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 4.7 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 4.7
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.2 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 6.1
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 28 May 2024
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: bridge: switchdev: Skip MDB replays of deferred events on offload
Before this change, generation of the list of MDB events to replay would race against the creation of new group memberships, either from the IGMP/MLD snooping logic or from user configuration.
While new memberships are immediately visible to walkers of br->mdb_list, the notification of their existence to switchdev event subscribers is deferred until a later point in time. So if a replay list was generated during a time that overlapped with such a window, it would also contain a replay of the not-yet-delivered event.
The driver would thus receive two copies of what the bridge internally considered to be one single event. On destruction of the bridge, only a single membership deletion event was therefore sent. As a consequence of this, drivers which reference count memberships (at least DSA), would be left with orphan groups in their hardware database when the bridge was destroyed.
This is only an issue when replaying additions. While deletion events may still be pending on the deferred queue, they will already have been removed from br->mdb_list, so no duplicates can be generated in that scenario.
To a user this meant that old group memberships, from a bridge in which a port was previously attached, could be reanimated (in hardware) when the port joined a new bridge, without the new bridge's knowledge.
For example, on an mv88e6xxx system, create a snooping bridge and immediately add a port to it:
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link add dev br0 up type bridge mcast_snooping 1 && \
> ip link set dev x3 up master br0
And then destroy the bridge:
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link del dev br0
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ mvls atu
ADDRESS FID STATE Q F 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a
DEV:0 Marvell 88E6393X
33:33:00:00:00:6a 1 static - - 0 . . . . . . . . . .
33:33:ff:87:e4:3f 1 static - - 0 . . . . . . . . . .
ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 1 static - - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$
The two IPv6 groups remain in the hardware database because the port (x3) is notified of the host's membership twice: once via the original event and once via a replay. Since only a single delete notification is sent, the count remains at 1 when the bridge is destroyed.
Then add the same port (or another port belonging to the same hardware domain) to a new bridge, this time with snooping disabled:
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link add dev br1 up type bridge mcast_snooping 0 && \
> ip link set dev x3 up master br1
All multicast, including the two IPv6 groups from br0, should now be flooded, according to the policy of br1. But instead the old memberships are still active in the hardware database, causing the switch to only forward traffic to those groups towards the CPU (port 0).
Eliminate the race in two steps:
- Grab the write-side lock of the MDB while generating the replay list.
This prevents new memberships from showing up while we are generating the replay list. But it leaves the scenario in which a deferred event was already generated, but not delivered, before we grabbed the lock. Therefore:
- Make sure that no deferred version of a replay event is already enqueued to the switchdev deferred queue, before adding it to the replay list, when replaying additions.
Source: suse_csaf, redhat_csaf, BSI CSAF, BSI WID Portal, ENISA EUVD, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux |
|
|
Vendors and products
Affected operating systems
| Linux | linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 |
| Linux | linux | linux_kernel | — |
References & sources
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/2d5b4b3376fa146a23917b8577064906d643925feuvd, Patch
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/603be95437e7fd85ba694e75918067fb9e7754dbeuvd, Patch
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/e0b4c5b1d760008f1dd18c07c35af0442e54f9c8euvd, Patch
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/dc489f86257cab5056e747344f17a164f63bff4beuvd, Patch
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2024-26837"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2024-26837.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2024-26837 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>