BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2021-47366High confidence

afs: Fix corruption in reads at fpos 2G-4G from an OpenAFS server

Linux · Linux

7.1HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
Distribution package intelligence

Ubuntu vendor package status

Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.

1 package state
Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Ubuntu releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-raspi-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2021-34371

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: afs: Fix corruption in reads at fpos 2G-4G from an OpenAFS server AFS-3 has two data fetch RPC variants, FS.FetchData and FS.FetchData64, and Linux's afs client switches between them when talking to a non-YFS server if the read size, the file position or the sum of the two have the upper 32 bits set of the 64-bit value. This is a problem, however, since the file position and length fields of FS.FetchData are *signed* 32-bit values. Fix this by capturing the capability bits obtained from the fileserver when it's sent an FS.GetCapabilities RPC, rather than just discarding them, and then picking out the VICED_CAPABILITY_64BITFILES flag. This can then be used to decide whether to use FS.FetchData or FS.FetchData64 - and also FS.StoreData or FS.StoreData64 - rather than using upper_32_bits() to switch on the parameter values. This capabilities flag could also be used to limit the maximum size of the file, but all servers must be checked for that. Note that the issue does not exist with FS.StoreData - that uses *unsigned* 32-bit values. It's also not a problem with Auristor servers as its YFS.FetchData64 op uses unsigned 64-bit values. This can be tested by cloning a git repo through an OpenAFS client to an OpenAFS server and then doing "git status" on it from a Linux afs client[1]. Provided the clone has a pack file that's in the 2G-4G range, the git status will show errors like: error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index This can be observed in the server's FileLog with something like the following appearing: Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData, Fid = 2303380852.491776.3263114, Host 192.168.11.201:7001, Id 1001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 CheckRights: len=0, for host=192.168.11.201:7001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: Pos 18446744071815340032, Len 3154 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: file size 2400758866 ... Sun Aug 29 19:31:40 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData returns 5 Note the file position of 18446744071815340032. This is the requested file position sign-extended.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: afs: Fix corruption in reads at fpos 2G-4G from an OpenAFS server AFS-3 has two data fetch RPC variants, FS.FetchData and FS.FetchData64, and Linux's afs client switches between them when talking to a non-YFS server if the read size, the file position or the sum of the two have the upper 32 bits set of the 64-bit value. This is a problem, however, since the file position and length fields of FS.FetchData are *signed* 32-bit values. Fix this by capturing the capability bits obtained from the fileserver when it's sent an FS.GetCapabilities RPC, rather than just discarding them, and then picking out the VICED_CAPABILITY_64BITFILES flag. This can then be used to decide whether to use FS.FetchData or FS.FetchData64 - and also FS.StoreData or FS.StoreData64 - rather than using upper_32_bits() to switch on the parameter values. This capabilities flag could also be used to limit the maximum size of the file, but all servers must be checked for that. Note that the issue does not exist with FS.StoreData - that uses *unsigned* 32-bit values. It's also not a problem with Auristor servers as its YFS.FetchData64 op uses unsigned 64-bit values. This can be tested by cloning a git repo through an OpenAFS client to an OpenAFS server and then doing "git status" on it from a Linux afs client[1]. Provided the clone has a pack file that's in the 2G-4G range, the git status will show errors like: error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index This can be observed in the server's FileLog with something like the following appearing: Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData, Fid = 2303380852.491776.3263114, Host 192.168.11.201:7001, Id 1001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 CheckRights: len=0, for host=192.168.11.201:7001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: Pos 18446744071815340032, Len 3154 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: file size 2400758866 ... Sun Aug 29 19:31:40 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData returns 5 Note the file position of 18446744071815340032. This is the requested file position sign-extended.

Why

A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: afs: Fix corruption in reads at fpos 2G-4G from an OpenAFS server AFS-3 has two data fetch RPC variants, FS.FetchData and FS.FetchData64, and Linux's afs client switches between them when talking to a non-YFS server if the read size, the file position or the sum of the two have the upper 32 bits set of the 64-bit value. This is a problem, however, since the file position and length fields of FS.FetchData are *signed* 32-bit values. Fix this by capturing the capability bits obtained from the fileserver when it's sent an FS.GetCapabilities RPC, rather than just discarding them, and then picking out the VICED_CAPABILITY_64BITFILES flag. This can then be used to decide whether to use FS.FetchData or FS.FetchData64 - and also FS.StoreData or FS.StoreData64 - rather than using upper_32_bits() to switch on the parameter values. This capabilities flag could also be used to limit the maximum size of the file, but all servers must be checked for that. Note that the issue does not exist with FS.StoreData - that uses *unsigned* 32-bit values. It's also not a problem with Auristor servers as its YFS.FetchData64 op uses unsigned 64-bit values. This can be tested by cloning a git repo through an OpenAFS client to an OpenAFS server and then doing "git status" on it from a Linux afs client[1]. Provided the clone has a pack file that's in the 2G-4G range, the git status will show errors like: error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index error: packfile .git/objects/pack/pack-5e813c51d12b6847bbc0fcd97c2bca66da50079c.pack does not match index This can be observed in the server's FileLog with something like the following appearing: Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData, Fid = 2303380852.491776.3263114, Host 192.168.11.201:7001, Id 1001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 CheckRights: len=0, for host=192.168.11.201:7001 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: Pos 18446744071815340032, Len 3154 Sun Aug 29 19:31:39 2021 FetchData_RXStyle: file size 2400758866 ... Sun Aug 29 19:31:40 2021 SRXAFS_FetchData returns 5 Note the file position of 18446744071815340032. This is the requested file position sign-extended.

Why

A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
local access → Out-of-bounds Write → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-787

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write. The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
CWE-787
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0106Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits IBM

rd?id=CVE-2019-9641 Référence CVE CVE-2020-20703 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2020-20703 Référence CVE CVE-2020-21469 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2020-21469 Référence CVE CVE-2021-21290 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-21290 Référence CVE CVE-2021-21295 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-21295 Référence CVE CVE-2021-21409 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-21409 Référence CVE CVE-2021-37136 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-37136 Référence CVE CVE-2021-37137 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-37137 Référence CVE CVE-2021-43797 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-43797 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47366 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47366 Référence CVE CVE-2022-21426 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-21426 Référence CVE CVE-2022-21434 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-21434 Référence CVE CVE-2022-21476 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-21476 Référence CVE CVE-2022-21540 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-21540 Référence CVE CVE-2022-21541 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-21541 Référence CVE CVE-2022-23491 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-23491 Référence CVE CVE-2022-24823 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-24823 Référence CVE CVE-2022-34169 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2024-AVI-0526Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2021-47357 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47358 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47358 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47359 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47359 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47360 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47360 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47361 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47361 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47362 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47362 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47363 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47363 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47364 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47364 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47365 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47365 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47366 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47366 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47367 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47367 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47368 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47368 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47369 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47369 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47370 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47370 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47371 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47371 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47372 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47372 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47373 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47373 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47374 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2024-AVI-0496Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2021-47357 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47358 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47358 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47359 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47359 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47360 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47360 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47361 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47361 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47362 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47362 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47363 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47363 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47364 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47364 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47365 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47365 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47366 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47366 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47367 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47367 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47368 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47368 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47369 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47369 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47370 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47370 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47371 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47371 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47372 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47372 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47373 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-47373 Référence CVE CVE-2021-47374 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
b9b1f8d5930a813879278d0cbfc8c658d6a038dc < e66fc460d6dcf85cf12288e133a081205aebcd97; b9b1f8d5930a813879278d0cbfc8c658d6a038dc < b537a3c21775075395af475dcc6ef212fcf29db8; 2.6.22
Fixed
< 2.6.22; 5.14.9 ≤ 5.14.*; 5.15 ≤ *
Action
Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 21 May 2024 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 08:47 UTC · CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2021-34371
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2021-47366 · cve.blacktree.nl