CVE-2024-35944 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2024-35944
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-2024-35944 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:21 UTC
Originally published on: 🕚 19 May 2024, 11:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 185 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2024-35944 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2024-35944: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: VMCI: Fix memcpy() run-time warning in dg_dispatch_as_host() Syzkaller hit 'WARNING in dg_dispatch_as_host' bug. memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "&dg_info->msg" at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 (size 24) WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1555 at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 dg_dispatch_as_host+0x88e/0xa60 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 Some code commentry, based on my understanding: 544 #define VMCI_DG_SIZE(_dg) (VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE + (size_t)(_dg)->payload_size) /// This is 24 + payload_size memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size); Destination = dg_info->msg ---> this is a 24 byte structure(struct vmci_datagram) Source = dg --> this is a 24 byte structure (struct vmci_datagram) Size = dg_size = 24 + payload_size {payload_size = 56-24 =32} -- Syzkaller managed to set payload_size to 32. 35 struct delayed_datagram_info { 36 struct datagram_entry *entry; 37 struct work_struct work; 38 bool in_dg_host_queue; 39 /* msg and msg_payload must be together. */ 40 struct vmci_datagram msg; 41 u8 msg_payload[]; 42 }; So those extra bytes of payload are copied into msg_payload[], a run time warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller. One possible way to fix the warning is to split the memcpy() into two parts -- one -- direct assignment of msg and second taking care of payload. Gustavo quoted: "Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members in a structure."

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2024-35944

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2024-35944 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-2024-35944

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-35944.

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-2024-35944, 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-2024-35944, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2024-35944 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2024-35944 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2024-35944 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: 0.044% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 15.73% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 84.27% of others.

CVE-2024-35944 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2024-35944: 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...