Search Results

There are 5 CVE Records that match your search.
Name Description
CVE-2024-41003 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix reg_set_min_max corruption of fake_reg Juan reported that after doing some changes to buzzer [0] and implementing a new fuzzing strategy guided by coverage, they noticed the following in one of the probes: [...] 13: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=map_value(ks=4,vs=8) R6_w=scalar() 14: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 15: (b4) w0 = -1 ; R0_w=0xffffffff 16: (74) w0 >>= 1 ; R0_w=0x7fffffff 17: (5c) w6 &= w0 ; R0_w=0x7fffffff R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=umax32=0x7fffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffff)) 18: (44) w6 |= 2 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=2,smax=umax=umax32=0x7fffffff,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffd)) 19: (56) if w6 != 0x7ffffffd goto pc+1 REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (true_reg2): range bounds violation u64=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] s64=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] u32=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] s32=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] var_off=(0x7fffffff, 0x0) REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (false_reg1): range bounds violation u64=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] s64=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] u32=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] s32=[0x7fffffff, 0x7ffffffd] var_off=(0x7fffffff, 0x0) REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (false_reg2): const tnum out of sync with range bounds u64=[0x0, 0xffffffffffffffff] s64=[0x8000000000000000, 0x7fffffffffffffff] u32=[0x0, 0xffffffff] s32=[0x80000000, 0x7fffffff] var_off=(0x7fffffff, 0x0) 19: R6_w=0x7fffffff 20: (95) exit from 19 to 21: R0=0x7fffffff R6=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=2,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=0x7ffffffe,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffd)) R7=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) R9=ctx() R10=fp0 fp-24=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) fp-40=mmmmmmmm 21: R0=0x7fffffff R6=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=2,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=0x7ffffffe,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffd)) R7=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) R9=ctx() R10=fp0 fp-24=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) fp-40=mmmmmmmm 21: (14) w6 -= 2147483632 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=2,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=0x80000012,smax32=14,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffd)) 22: (76) if w6 s>= 0xe goto pc+1 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=2,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=0x80000012,smax32=13,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffd)) 23: (95) exit from 22 to 24: R0=0x7fffffff R6_w=14 R7=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) R9=ctx() R10=fp0 fp-24=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) fp-40=mmmmmmmm 24: R0=0x7fffffff R6_w=14 R7=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) R9=ctx() R10=fp0 fp-24=map_ptr(ks=4,vs=8) fp-40=mmmmmmmm 24: (14) w6 -= 14 ; R6_w=0 [...] What can be seen here is a register invariant violation on line 19. After the binary-or in line 18, the verifier knows that bit 2 is set but knows nothing about the rest of the content which was loaded from a map value, meaning, range is [2,0x7fffffff] with var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffd). When in line 19 the verifier analyzes the branch, it splits the register states in reg_set_min_max() into the registers of the true branch (true_reg1, true_reg2) and the registers of the false branch (false_reg1, false_reg2). Since the test is w6 != 0x7ffffffd, the src_reg is a known constant. Internally, the verifier creates a "fake" register initialized as scalar to the value of 0x7ffffffd, and then passes it onto reg_set_min_max(). Now, for line 19, it is mathematically impossible to take the false branch of this program, yet the verifier analyzes it. It is impossible because the second bit of r6 will be set due to the prior or operation and the constant in the condition has that bit unset (hex(fd) == binary(1111 1101). When the verifier first analyzes the false / fall-through branch, it will compute an intersection between the var_off of r6 and of the constant. This is because the verifier creates a "fake" register initialized to the value of the constant. The intersection result later refines both registers in regs_refine_cond_op(): [...] t = tnum_intersect(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off)); reg1->var_o ---truncated---
CVE-2024-26589 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Reject variable offset alu on PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS For PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS, check_flow_keys_access() only uses fixed off for validation. However, variable offset ptr alu is not prohibited for this ptr kind. So the variable offset is not checked. The following prog is accepted: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 0: (bf) r6 = r1 ; R1=ctx() R6_w=ctx() 1: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r6 +144) ; R6_w=ctx() R7_w=flow_keys() 2: (b7) r8 = 1024 ; R8_w=1024 3: (37) r8 /= 1 ; R8_w=scalar() 4: (57) r8 &= 1024 ; R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0, smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off=(0x0; 0x400)) 5: (0f) r7 += r8 mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 4: (57) r8 &= 1024 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 3: (37) r8 /= 1 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 2: (b7) r8 = 1024 6: R7_w=flow_keys(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off =(0x0; 0x400)) R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024, var_off=(0x0; 0x400)) 6: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) ; R0_w=scalar() 7: (95) exit This prog loads flow_keys to r7, and adds the variable offset r8 to r7, and finally causes out-of-bounds access: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc90014c80038 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:1231 [inline] __bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:651 [inline] bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:658 [inline] bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu include/linux/filter.h:675 [inline] bpf_flow_dissect+0x15f/0x350 net/core/flow_dissector.c:991 bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector+0x39d/0x620 net/bpf/test_run.c:1359 bpf_prog_test_run kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4107 [inline] __sys_bpf+0xf8f/0x4560 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5475 __do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5561 [inline] __se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559 [inline] __x64_sys_bpf+0x73/0xb0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b Fix this by rejecting ptr alu with variable offset on flow_keys. Applying the patch rejects the program with "R7 pointer arithmetic on flow_keys prohibited".
CVE-2023-4964 Potential open redirect vulnerability in opentext Service Management Automation X (SMAX) versions 2020.05, 2020.08, 2020.11, 2021.02, 2021.05, 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11 and opentext Asset Management X (AMX) versions 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11. The vulnerability could allow attackers to redirect a user to malicious websites.
CVE-2023-32260 Misinterpretation of Input vulnerability in OpenText&#8482; Service Management Automation X (SMAX), OpenText&#8482; Asset Management X (AMX), and OpenText&#8482; Hybrid Cloud Management X (HCMX) products. The vulnerability could allow Input data manipulation.This issue affects Service Management Automation X (SMAX) versions: 2020.05, 2020.08, 2020.11, 2021.02, 2021.05, 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11, 2023.05; Asset Management X (AMX) versions: 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11, 2023.05; and Hybrid Cloud Management X (HCMX) versions: 2020.05, 2020.08, 2020.11, 2021.02, 2021.05, 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11, 2023.05.
CVE-2023-32259 Insufficient Granularity of Access Control vulnerability in OpenText&#8482; Service Management Automation X (SMAX), OpenText&#8482; Asset Management X (AMX) allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Service Management Automation X (SMAX) versions 2020.05, 2020.08, 2020.11, 2021.02, 2021.05, 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11; and Asset Management X (AMX) versions 2021.08, 2021.11, 2022.05, 2022.11.
Back to top
  
You can also search by reference using the CVE Reference Maps.
For More Information:  CVE Request Web Form (select “Other” from dropdown)