CVE-2024-35949 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2024-35949
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-2024-35949 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:21 UTC
Originally published on: 🕙 20 May 2024, 10:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 184 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2024-35949 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2024-35949: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: make sure that WRITTEN is set on all metadata blocks We previously would call btrfs_check_leaf() if we had the check integrity code enabled, which meant that we could only run the extended leaf checks if we had WRITTEN set on the header flags. This leaves a gap in our checking, because we could end up with corruption on disk where WRITTEN isn't set on the leaf, and then the extended leaf checks don't get run which we rely on to validate all of the item pointers to make sure we don't access memory outside of the extent buffer. However, since 732fab95abe2 ("btrfs: check-integrity: remove CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY option") we no longer call btrfs_check_leaf() from btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty(), which means we only ever call it on blocks that are being written out, and thus have WRITTEN set, or that are being read in, which should have WRITTEN set. Add checks to make sure we have WRITTEN set appropriately, and then make sure __btrfs_check_leaf() always does the item checking. This will protect us from file systems that have been corrupted and no longer have WRITTEN set on some of the blocks. This was hit on a crafted image tweaking the WRITTEN bit and reported by KASAN as out-of-bound access in the eb accessors. The example is a dir item at the end of an eb. [2.042] BTRFS warning (device loop1): bad eb member start: ptr 0x3fff start 30572544 member offset 16410 size 2 [2.040] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xe0009d1000000003: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI [2.537] KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0005088000000018-0x000508800000001f] [2.729] CPU: 0 PID: 2587 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.8.2 #1 [2.729] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 [2.621] RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_16+0x34b/0x6d0 [2.621] RSP: 0018:ffff88810871fab8 EFLAGS: 00000206 [2.621] RAX: 0000a11000000003 RBX: ffff888104ff8720 RCX: ffff88811b2288c0 [2.621] RDX: dffffc0000000000 RSI: ffffffff81dd8aca RDI: ffff88810871f748 [2.621] RBP: 000000000000401a R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffffed10210e3ee9 [2.621] R10: ffff88810871f74f R11: 205d323430333737 R12: 000000000000001a [2.621] R13: 000508800000001a R14: 1ffff110210e3f5d R15: ffffffff850011e8 [2.621] FS: 00007f56ea275840(0000) GS:ffff88811b200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [2.621] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [2.621] CR2: 00007febd13b75c0 CR3: 000000010bb50000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 [2.621] Call Trace: [2.621] <TASK> [2.621] ? show_regs+0x74/0x80 [2.621] ? die_addr+0x46/0xc0 [2.621] ? exc_general_protection+0x161/0x2a0 [2.621] ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30 [2.621] ? btrfs_get_16+0x33a/0x6d0 [2.621] ? btrfs_get_16+0x34b/0x6d0 [2.621] ? btrfs_get_16+0x33a/0x6d0 [2.621] ? __pfx_btrfs_get_16+0x10/0x10 [2.621] ? __pfx_mutex_unlock+0x10/0x10 [2.621] btrfs_match_dir_item_name+0x101/0x1a0 [2.621] btrfs_lookup_dir_item+0x1f3/0x280 [2.621] ? __pfx_btrfs_lookup_dir_item+0x10/0x10 [2.621] btrfs_get_tree+0xd25/0x1910 [ copy more details from report ]

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2024-35949

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2024-35949 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-2024-35949

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-35949.

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-2024-35949, 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-2024-35949, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2024-35949 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2024-35949 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2024-35949 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: 0.043% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 11.87% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 88.13% of others.

CVE-2024-35949 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2024-35949: 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...