IBM Support

Security Bulletin: The following vulnerabilities that can affect IBM Storage Scale System are now included (CVE-2023-52486 CVE-2023-52881)

Security Bulletin


Summary

The following vulnerabilities that can affect IBM Storage Scale System and could provide weaker than expected security are now fixed (CVE-2023-52486 CVE-2023-52881).

Vulnerability Details

CVEID:   CVE-2023-52881
DESCRIPTION:   In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp: do not accept ACK of bytes we never sent This patch is based on a detailed report and ideas from Yepeng Pan and Christian Rossow. ACK seq validation is currently following RFC 5961 5.2 guidelines: The ACK value is considered acceptable only if it is in the range of ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <= SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT). All incoming segments whose ACK value doesn't satisfy the above condition MUST be discarded and an ACK sent back. It needs to be noted that RFC 793 on page 72 (fifth check) says: "If the ACK is a duplicate (SEG.ACK < SND.UNA), it can be ignored. If the ACK acknowledges something not yet sent (SEG.ACK > SND.NXT) then send an ACK, drop the segment, and return". The "ignored" above implies that the processing of the incoming data segment continues, which means the ACK value is treated as acceptable. This mitigation makes the ACK check more stringent since any ACK < SND.UNA wouldn't be accepted, instead only ACKs that are in the range ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <= SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT) get through. This can be refined for new (and possibly spoofed) flows, by not accepting ACK for bytes that were never sent. This greatly improves TCP security at a little cost. I added a Fixes: tag to make sure this patch will reach stable trees, even if the 'blamed' patch was adhering to the RFC. tp->bytes_acked was added in linux-4.2 Following packetdrill test (courtesy of Yepeng Pan) shows the issue at hand: 0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 +0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 +0 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0 +0 listen(3, 1024) = 0 // ---------------- Handshake ------------------- // // when window scale is set to 14 the window size can be extended to // 65535 * (2^14) = 1073725440. Linux would accept an ACK packet // with ack number in (Server_ISN+1-1073725440. Server_ISN+1) // ,though this ack number acknowledges some data never // sent by the server. +0 < S 0:0(0) win 65535 +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <...> +0 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 65535 +0 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4 // For the established connection, we send an ACK packet, // the ack packet uses ack number 1 - 1073725300 + 2^32, // where 2^32 is used to wrap around. // Note: we used 1073725300 instead of 1073725440 to avoid possible // edge cases. // 1 - 1073725300 + 2^32 = 3221241997 // Oops, old kernels happily accept this packet. +0 < . 1:1001(1000) ack 3221241997 win 65535 // After the kernel fix the following will be replaced by a challenge ACK, // and prior malicious frame would be dropped. +0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001
CWE:   CWE-1287: Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2023-52486
DESCRIPTION:   In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm: Don't unref the same fb many times by mistake due to deadlock handling If we get a deadlock after the fb lookup in drm_mode_page_flip_ioctl() we proceed to unref the fb and then retry the whole thing from the top. But we forget to reset the fb pointer back to NULL, and so if we then get another error during the retry, before the fb lookup, we proceed the unref the same fb again without having gotten another reference. The end result is that the fb will (eventually) end up being freed while it's still in use. Reset fb to NULL once we've unreffed it to avoid doing it again until we've done another fb lookup. This turned out to be pretty easy to hit on a DG2 when doing async flips (and CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH=y). The first symptom I saw that drm_closefb() simply got stuck in a busy loop while walking the framebuffer list. Fortunately I was able to convince it to oops instead, and from there it was easier to track down the culprit.
CWE:   CWE-667: Improper Locking
CVSS Source:   NVD
CVSS Base score:   5.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

Affected Products and Versions

Affected Product(s)Version(s)
IBM Storage Scale System6.2.0.0 - 6.2.1.1
IBM Storage Scale System6.1.0.0 - 6.1.9.4

Workarounds and Mitigations

None

Get Notified about Future Security Bulletins

References

Off

Acknowledgement

Change History

09 Jun 2025: Initial Publication

*The CVSS Environment Score is customer environment specific and will ultimately impact the Overall CVSS Score. Customers can evaluate the impact of this vulnerability in their environments by accessing the links in the Reference section of this Security Bulletin.

Disclaimer

According to the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is an "industry open standard designed to convey vulnerability severity and help to determine urgency and priority of response." IBM PROVIDES THE CVSS SCORES ""AS IS"" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. CUSTOMERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SECURITY VULNERABILITY. In addition to other efforts to address potential vulnerabilities, IBM periodically updates the record of components contained in our product offerings. As part of that effort, if IBM identifies previously unidentified packages in a product/service inventory, we address relevant vulnerabilities regardless of CVE date. Inclusion of an older CVEID does not demonstrate that the referenced product has been used by IBM since that date, nor that IBM was aware of a vulnerability as of that date. We are making clients aware of relevant vulnerabilities as we become aware of them. "Affected Products and Versions" referenced in IBM Security Bulletins are intended to be only products and versions that are supported by IBM and have not passed their end-of-support or warranty date. Thus, failure to reference unsupported or extended-support products and versions in this Security Bulletin does not constitute a determination by IBM that they are unaffected by the vulnerability. Reference to one or more unsupported versions in this Security Bulletin shall not create an obligation for IBM to provide fixes for any unsupported or extended-support products or versions.

Document Location

Worldwide

[{"Business Unit":{"code":"BU048","label":"IBM Software"},"Product":{"code":"SSP944","label":"IBM Storage Scale System"},"Component":"","Platform":[{"code":"PF016","label":"Linux"}],"Version":"6.1.9.4 and 6.2.1.1","Edition":"","Line of Business":{"code":"LOB69","label":"Storage TPS"}}]

Document Information

Modified date:
09 June 2025

UID

ibm17236043