In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bnxt_en: Fix out-of-bound memcpy() during ethtool -w
When retrieving the FW coredump using ethtool, it can sometimes cause
memory corruption:
BUG: KFENCE: memory corruption in __bnxt_get_coredump+0x3ef/0x670 [bnxt_en]
Corrupted memory at 0x000000008f0f30e8 [ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ] (in kfence-#45):
__bnxt_get_coredump+0x3ef/0x670 [bnxt_en]
ethtool_get_dump_data+0xdc/0x1a0
__dev_ethtool+0xa1e/0x1af0
dev_ethtool+0xa8/0x170
dev_ioctl+0x1b5/0x580
sock_do_ioctl+0xab/0xf0
sock_ioctl+0x1ce/0x2e0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x5c/0xf0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0x80
...
This happens when copying the coredump segment list in
bnxt_hwrm_dbg_dma_data() with the HWRM_DBG_COREDUMP_LIST FW command.
The info->dest_buf buffer is allocated based on the number of coredump
segments returned by the FW. The segment list is then DMA'ed by
the FW and the length of the DMA is returned by FW. The driver then
copies this DMA'ed segment list to info->dest_buf.
In some cases, this DMA length may exceed the info->dest_buf length
and cause the above BUG condition. Fix it by capping the copy
length to not exceed the length of info->dest_buf. The extra
DMA data contains no useful information.
This code path is shared for the HWRM_DBG_COREDUMP_LIST and the
HWRM_DBG_COREDUMP_RETRIEVE FW commands. The buffering is different
for these 2 FW commands. To simplify the logic, we need to move
the line to adjust the buffer length for HWRM_DBG_COREDUMP_RETRIEVE
up, so that the new check to cap the copy length will work for both
commands.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it