The setup_arg_pages function in fs/exec.c in the Linux kernel before 2.6.36, when CONFIG_STACK_GROWSDOWN is used, does not properly restrict the stack memory consumption of the (1) arguments and (2) environment for a 32-bit application on a 64-bit platform, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (system crash) via a crafted exec system call, a related issue to CVE-2010-2240.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux_kernel | Linux | * | 2.6.36 (excluding) |
| MRG for RHEL-5 | RedHat | kernel-rt-0:2.6.33.7-rt29.47.el5rt | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | RedHat | kernel-0:2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | RedHat | kernel-0:2.6.32-131.2.1.el6 | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | hardy | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | jaunty | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | karmic | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | lucid | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | maverick | * |
| Linux | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-ec2 | Ubuntu | karmic | * |
| Linux-ec2 | Ubuntu | lucid | * |
| Linux-ec2 | Ubuntu | maverick | * |
| Linux-ec2 | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-fsl-imx51 | Ubuntu | karmic | * |
| Linux-fsl-imx51 | Ubuntu | lucid | * |
| Linux-fsl-imx51 | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-lts-backport-maverick | Ubuntu | lucid | * |
| Linux-lts-backport-maverick | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-lts-backport-natty | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-mvl-dove | Ubuntu | karmic | * |
| Linux-mvl-dove | Ubuntu | lucid | * |
| Linux-mvl-dove | Ubuntu | maverick | * |
| Linux-mvl-dove | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-source-2.6.15 | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| Linux-ti-omap4 | Ubuntu | maverick | * |
| Linux-ti-omap4 | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.