CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2010-4805

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: May 26, 2011 | Modified: Apr 11, 2025
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.8 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V2
6.1 MODERATE
AV:A/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
LOW

The socket implementation in net/core/sock.c in the Linux kernel before 2.6.35 does not properly manage a backlog of received packets, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by sending a large amount of network traffic, related to the sk_add_backlog function and the sk_rmem_alloc socket field. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2010-4251.

Weakness

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Linux_kernel Linux * 2.6.35 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 RedHat kernel-0:2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat kernel-0:2.6.32-131.0.15.el6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 EUS - Server Only RedHat kernel-0:2.6.32-71.31.1.el6 *
Linux Ubuntu hardy *
Linux Ubuntu lucid *
Linux Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-armadaxp Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-maverick Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-natty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-oneiric Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-source-2.6.15 Ubuntu dapper *
Linux-source-2.6.15 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu upstream *

Potential Mitigations

  • 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.

References