CVE-2024-27415 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2024-27415
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
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-2024-27415 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:04 UTC
Originally published on: 🕛 17 May 2024, 12:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 187 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2024-27415 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2024-27415: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: bridge: confirm multicast packets before passing them up the stack conntrack nf_confirm logic cannot handle cloned skbs referencing the same nf_conn entry, which will happen for multicast (broadcast) frames on bridges. Example: macvlan0 | br0 / \ ethX ethY ethX (or Y) receives a L2 multicast or broadcast packet containing an IP packet, flow is not yet in conntrack table. 1. skb passes through bridge and fake-ip (br_netfilter)Prerouting. -> skb->_nfct now references a unconfirmed entry 2. skb is broad/mcast packet. bridge now passes clones out on each bridge interface. 3. skb gets passed up the stack. 4. In macvlan case, macvlan driver retains clone(s) of the mcast skb and schedules a work queue to send them out on the lower devices. The clone skb->_nfct is not a copy, it is the same entry as the original skb. The macvlan rx handler then returns RX_HANDLER_PASS. 5. Normal conntrack hooks (in NF_INET_LOCAL_IN) confirm the orig skb. The Macvlan broadcast worker and normal confirm path will race. This race will not happen if step 2 already confirmed a clone. In that case later steps perform skb_clone() with skb->_nfct already confirmed (in hash table). This works fine. But such confirmation won't happen when eb/ip/nftables rules dropped the packets before they reached the nf_confirm step in postrouting. Pablo points out that nf_conntrack_bridge doesn't allow use of stateful nat, so we can safely discard the nf_conn entry and let inet call conntrack again. This doesn't work for bridge netfilter: skb could have a nat transformation. Also bridge nf prevents re-invocation of inet prerouting via 'sabotage_in' hook. Work around this problem by explicit confirmation of the entry at LOCAL_IN time, before upper layer has a chance to clone the unconfirmed entry. The downside is that this disables NAT and conntrack helpers. Alternative fix would be to add locking to all code parts that deal with unconfirmed packets, but even if that could be done in a sane way this opens up other problems, for example: -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j SNAT --snat-to 1.2.3.4 -m physdev --physdev-out eth1 -j SNAT --snat-to 1.2.3.5 For multicast case, only one of such conflicting mappings will be created, conntrack only handles 1:1 NAT mappings. Users should set create a setup that explicitly marks such traffic NOTRACK (conntrack bypass) to avoid this, but we cannot auto-bypass them, ruleset might have accept rules for untracked traffic already, so user-visible behaviour would change.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2024-27415

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2024-27415 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-2024-27415

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-27415.

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-2024-27415, 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-2024-27415, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2024-27415 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2024-27415 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2024-27415 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: 18.35% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.65% of others.

CVE-2024-27415 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2024-27415: 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-2024-43107 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Milestone Integration Plugin (MIP) permits unauthenticated messages (e.g. alarm events) ...
  • CVE-2024-41724 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Command Centre SALTO integration allowed an attacker to spoof the SALTO server. Thi...
  • CVE-2025-2133 – A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in ftcms 2.1. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /admin/ind...
  • CVE-2025-2132 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in ftcms 2.1. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/index.php/web/ajax_all_lists...
  • CVE-2025-2131 – A vulnerability was found in dayrui XunRuiCMS up to 4.6.3. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the comp...