CyberRota Analysis
AI-GeneratedThe vulnerability in the Linux kernel affects the eCryptfs subsystem, where the function `parse_tag_3_packet()` improperly handles oversized `encrypted_key_size`, leading to out-of-bounds writes that can corrupt critical memory structures. This flaw primarily impacts systems using AES-192 encryption, potentially allowing attackers to exploit memory corruption for privilege escalation or denial of service. Organizations utilizing Linux systems with eCryptfs should prioritize patching this vulnerability to safeguard against potential exploitation.
Original NVD Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ecryptfs: reject oversized encrypted_key_size in parse_tag_3_packet parse_tag_3_packet() set encrypted_key_size from the Tag 3 packet body without bounding it against ECRYPTFS_MAX_KEY_BYTES (64). When encrypted_key_size > 64, decrypt_passphrase_encrypted_session_key() sets decrypted_key_size = encrypted_key_size and performs two out-of-bounds writes: 1. crypto_skcipher_decrypt() writes encrypted_key_size bytes into decrypted_key[64] via scatterlist, overflowing into the parent ecryptfs_auth_tok struct. 2. memcpy(crypt_stat->key, decrypted_key, decrypted_key_size) writes into crypt_stat->key[64], corrupting root_iv, keysig_list, and mutexes in ecryptfs_crypt_stat. Only AES-192 (cipher code 0x08) enables this because it sets crypt_stat->key_size = 24 independently of encrypted_key_size, allowing crypto_skcipher_setkey() to succeed while encrypted_key_size exceeds ECRYPTFS_MAX_KEY_BYTES. The PKI decryption path (parse_tag_65_packet) already validates decrypted_key_size <= ECRYPTFS_MAX_KEY_BYTES; the passphrase path omits this check. Bound encrypted_key_size against ECRYPTFS_MAX_KEY_BYTES (64) rather than ECRYPTFS_MAX_ENCRYPTED_KEY_BYTES (512). The 64-byte limit also protects the 512-byte encrypted_key[] buffer, so the former 512-byte check is removed as redundant. [tyhicks: Adjust the code comment to refer to macros representing the buffer sizes rather than mentioning the buffer size values since they may change in the future]