CVE-2009-2911
What it is
SystemTap 1.0, when the --unprivileged option is used, does not properly restrict certain data sizes, which allows local users to (1) cause a denial of service or gain privileges via a print operation with a large number of arguments that trigger a kernel stack overflow, (2) cause a denial of service via crafted DWARF expressions that trigger a kernel stack frame overflow, or (3) cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via vectors that trigger creation of large unwind tables, related to Common Information Entry (CIE) and Call Frame Instruction (CFI) records.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited locally on the machine without logging in. Limited direct impact.
- Exploit odds
- 0.5% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 0.5% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 1.9 LOW (CVSS).
- Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.5% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Weakness
- CWE-264
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Systemtap 1.0
Attack profile CVSS 2.0 · 1.9
- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Medium
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
Raw vector
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2009-2911.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2009-2911. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
Fix and advisories
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/10/21/1
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/2989
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/10/21/1
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/2989
References
- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41633
- http://secunia.com/advisories/37167
- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10750
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/10/21/1
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36778
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/2989
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529175
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-October/msg00627.html
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-October/msg00793.html
- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41633
- http://secunia.com/advisories/37167
- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10750
- http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/10/21/1
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36778
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/2989
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529175
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-October/msg00627.html
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-October/msg00793.html