Android Kernel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Exploited since 2024-08-07. No WAF vendor names it yet.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race __dst_negative_advice() does not enforce proper RCU rules when sk->dst_cache must be cleared, leading to possible UAF. RCU rules… More
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race __dst_negative_advice() does not enforce proper RCU rules when sk->dst_cache must be cleared, leading to possible UAF. RCU rules are that we must first clear sk->sk_dst_cache, then call dst_release(old_dst). Note that sk_dst_reset(sk) is implementing this protocol correctly, while __dst_negative_advice() uses the wrong order. Given that ip6_negative_advice() has special logic against RTF_CACHE, this means each of the three ->negative_advice() existing methods must perform the sk_dst_reset() themselves. Note the check against NULL dst is centralized in __dst_negative_advice(), there is no need to duplicate it in various callbacks. Many thanks to Clement Lecigne for tracking this issue. This old bug became visible after the blamed commit, using UDP sockets.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable with local access, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker needs local access, or must trick a user into opening something on the machine.Local
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.Low
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2024-06-10CVE publishedCVE List
- 2024-08-07Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.