CVE-2022-49049 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2022-49049
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

Attack Complexity:
Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
Attack Vector:
Attack Vector Under Analysis
Privileges Required: None
No authentication is required for exploitation.
Scope:
Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
User Interaction: None
No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2022-49049 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕖 16 Apr 2025, 19:15 UTC
Originally published on: 🕖 26 Feb 2025, 07:00 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 49 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2022-49049 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2022-49049: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/secretmem: fix panic when growing a memfd_secret When one tries to grow an existing memfd_secret with ftruncate, one gets a panic [1]. For example, doing the following reliably induces the panic: fd = memfd_secret(); ftruncate(fd, 10); ptr = mmap(NULL, 10, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); strcpy(ptr, "123456789"); munmap(ptr, 10); ftruncate(fd, 20); The basic reason for this is, when we grow with ftruncate, we call down into simple_setattr, and then truncate_inode_pages_range, and eventually we try to zero part of the memory. The normal truncation code does this via the direct map (i.e., it calls page_address() and hands that to memset()). For memfd_secret though, we specifically don't map our pages via the direct map (i.e. we call set_direct_map_invalid_noflush() on every fault). So the address returned by page_address() isn't useful, and when we try to memset() with it we panic. This patch avoids the panic by implementing a custom setattr for memfd_secret, which detects resizes specifically (setting the size for the first time works just fine, since there are no existing pages to try to zero), and rejects them with EINVAL. One could argue growing should be supported, but I think that will require a significantly more lengthy change. So, I propose a minimal fix for the benefit of stable kernels, and then perhaps to extend memfd_secret to support growing in a separate patch. [1]: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffa0a889277028 #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page PGD afa01067 P4D afa01067 PUD 83f909067 PMD 83f8bf067 PTE 800ffffef6d88060 Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC PTI CPU: 0 PID: 281 Comm: repro Not tainted 5.17.0-dbg-DEV #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:memset_erms+0x9/0x10 Code: c1 e9 03 40 0f b6 f6 48 b8 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 48 0f af c6 f3 48 ab 89 d1 f3 aa 4c 89 c8 c3 90 49 89 f9 40 88 f0 48 89 d1 <f3> aa 4c 89 c8 c3 90 49 89 fa 40 0f b6 ce 48 b8 01 01 01 01 01 01 RSP: 0018:ffffb932c09afbf0 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffda63c4249dc0 RCX: 0000000000000fd8 RDX: 0000000000000fd8 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffa0a889277028 RBP: ffffb932c09afc00 R08: 0000000000001000 R09: ffffa0a889277028 R10: 0000000000020023 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffda63c4249dc0 R13: ffffa0a890d70d98 R14: 0000000000000028 R15: 0000000000000fd8 FS: 00007f7294899580(0000) GS:ffffa0af9bc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: ffffa0a889277028 CR3: 0000000107ef6006 CR4: 0000000000370ef0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: ? zero_user_segments+0x82/0x190 truncate_inode_partial_folio+0xd4/0x2a0 truncate_inode_pages_range+0x380/0x830 truncate_setsize+0x63/0x80 simple_setattr+0x37/0x60 notify_change+0x3d8/0x4d0 do_sys_ftruncate+0x162/0x1d0 __x64_sys_ftruncate+0x1c/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x44/0xa0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae Modules linked in: xhci_pci xhci_hcd virtio_net net_failover failover virtio_blk virtio_balloon uhci_hcd ohci_pci ohci_hcd evdev ehci_pci ehci_hcd 9pnet_virtio 9p netfs 9pnet CR2: ffffa0a889277028 [lkp@intel.com: secretmem_iops can be static] [axelrasmussen@google.com: return EINVAL]

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2022-49049

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2022-49049 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2022-49049

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2022-49049.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2022-49049, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2022-49049, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2022-49049 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2022-49049 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2022-49049 does not affect system availability.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.045% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 18.4% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.6% of others.

CVE-2022-49049 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2022-49049: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-3799 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in WCMS 11. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/controllers/AnonymousContr...
CVE-2025-3798 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in WCMS 11. This issue affects the function sub of the file app/admin/AdvadminCon...
CVE-2025-3661 – The SB Chart block plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘className’ parameter in all versions up to, and inclu...
CVE-2025-3404 – The Download Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the savePackage func...
CVE-2021-4455 – The Wordpress Plugin Smart Product Review plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads due to missing file type validation in all v...