In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ima: verify the previous kernel's IMA buffer lies in addressable RAM
Patch series "Address page fault in ima_restore_measurement_list()", v3.
When the second-stage kernel is booted via kexec with a limiting command line such as "mem=<size>" we observe a pafe fault that happens.
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff97793ff47000
RIP: ima_restore_measurement_list+0xdc/0x45a
#PF: error_code(0x0000) not-present page
This happens on x86_64 only, as this is already fixed in aarch64 in commit: cbf9c4b9617b ("of: check previous kernel's ima-kexec-buffer against memory bounds")
This patch (of 3):
When the second-stage kernel is booted with a limiting command line (e.g. "mem=<size>"), the IMA measurement buffer handed over from the previous kernel may fall outside the addressable RAM of the new kernel. Accessing such a buffer can fault during early restore.
Introduce a small generic helper, ima_validate_range(), which verifies that a physical [start, end] range for the previous-kernel IMA buffer lies within addressable memory: - On x86, use pfn_range_is_mapped(). - On OF based architectures, use page_is_ram().
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.6 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.0 | 6.12.77 |
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.