CVE-2026-53004

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

sctp: fix OOB write to userspace in sctp_getsockopt_peer_auth_chunks

sctp_getsockopt_peer_auth_chunks() checks that the callers optval buffer is large enough for the peer AUTH chunk list with

if (len < num_chunks)
        return -EINVAL;

but then writes num_chunks bytes to p->gauth_chunks, which lives at offset offsetof(struct sctp_authchunks, gauth_chunks) == 8 inside optval. The check is missing the sizeof(struct sctp_authchunks) = 8-byte header. When the caller supplies len == num_chunks (for any num_chunks > 0) the test passes but copy_to_user() writes sizeof(struct sctp_authchunks) = 8 bytes past the declared buffer.

The sibling function sctp_getsockopt_local_auth_chunks() at the next line already has the correct check:

if (len < sizeof(struct sctp_authchunks) + num_chunks)
        return -EINVAL;

Align the peer variant with its sibling.

Reproducer confirms on v7.0-13-generic: an unprivileged userspace caller that opens a loopback SCTP association with AUTH enabled, queries num_chunks with a short optval, then issues the real getsockopt with len == num_chunks and sentinel bytes painted past the buffer observes those sentinel bytes overwritten with the peers AUTH chunk type. The bytes written are under the peers control but land in the callers own userspace; this is not a kernel memory corruption, but it is a kernel-side contract violation that can silently corrupt adjacent userspace data.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

• Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

• Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

• D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

• Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

• Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

• Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

• Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0cf004ffb61cd32d140531c3a84afe975f9fc7ea
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2b5a2c957c7769d40110f725cf23987fcef50d75
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6849b995cda88a677bf08a05765d1db7905974fc
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6bcf8fe4ef7967b22b814cbae9a57bbd3c853410
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/70a089cc9590aa347a61e84434116ab74619e3c3
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a132e199de69e2a45628aa8534df1bf5d44e1b6e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d45c7e99caf915b0f6c716bd8ffe9d45b9685761
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d67fbc6dea5dbf7f46c618ebf65910a276078e20