CVE-2024-35884 — linux / linux_kernel
Reachable AssertionIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
udp: do not accept non-tunnel GSO skbs landing in a tunnel
When rx-udp-gro-forwarding is enabled UDP packets might be GROed when being forwarded. If such packets might land in a tunnel this can cause various issues and udp_gro_receive makes sure this isn't the case by looking for a matching socket. This is performed in udp4/6_gro_lookup_skb but only in the current netns. This is an issue with tunneled packets when the endpoint is in another netns. In such cases the packets will be GROed at the UDP level, which leads to various issues later on. The same thing can happen with rx-gro-list.
We saw this with geneve packets being GROed at the UDP level. In such case gso_size is set; later the packet goes through the geneve rx path, the geneve header is pulled, the offset are adjusted and frag_list skbs are not adjusted with regard to geneve. When those skbs hit skb_fragment, it will misbehave. Different outcomes are possible depending on what the GROed skbs look like; from corrupted packets to kernel crashes.
One example is a BUG_ON[1] triggered in skb_segment while processing the frag_list. Because gso_size is wrong (geneve header was pulled) skb_segment thinks there is "geneve header size" of data in frag_list, although it's in fact the next packet. The BUG_ON itself has nothing to do with the issue. This is only one of the potential issues.
Looking up for a matching socket in udp_gro_receive is fragile: the lookup could be extended to all netns (not speaking about performances) but nothing prevents those packets from being modified in between and we could still not find a matching socket. It's OK to keep the current logic there as it should cover most cases but we also need to make sure we handle tunnel packets being GROed too early.
This is done by extending the checks in udp_unexpected_gso: GSO packets lacking the SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL/_CSUM bits and landing in a tunnel must be segmented.
[1] kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4408! RIP: 0010:skb_segment+0xd2a/0xf70 __udp_gso_segment+0xaa/0x560
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.6 | 5.10.215 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.154 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.85 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.26 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.8.5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.9-rc1 | 6.9-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.9-rc2 | 6.9-rc2.x |
| debian / debian_linux | 10.0 | 10.0.x |
- https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-265688.html
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3001e7aa43d6691db2a878b0745b854bf12ddd19
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3391b157780bbedf8ef9f202cbf10ee90bf6b0f8
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/35fe0e0b5c00bef7dde74842a2564c43856fbce4
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3d010c8031e39f5fa1e8b13ada77e0321091011f
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d12245080cb259d82b34699f6cd4ec11bdb688bd
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d49ae15a5767d4e9ef8bbb79e42df1bfebc94670
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00017.html
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.