CVE-2024-50302 is an use of uninitialized resource vulnerability in Linux Kernel. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 4 March 2025, which means attackers have used it in real attacks. The Linux kernel contains a use of uninitialized resource vulnerability that allows an attacker to leak kernel memory via a specially crafted HID report.
What this vulnerability means
CVE-2024-50302 is a Linux kernel memory-disclosure flaw: a specially crafted HID report can trigger use of an uninitialized resource and leak kernel memory. That matters because kernel memory may contain sensitive data, internal pointers, or security state that should never be exposed to user space.
For vulnerability records and patch-status tracking, use the NIST National Vulnerability Database alongside the CVE Program, since those sources are the authoritative places to confirm the record and follow the linked references.
Why this kind of kernel flaw is dangerous
Memory disclosure in the kernel is dangerous even when it does not directly execute code. Leaked kernel data can weaken address-space protections, reveal secrets, and make later exploitation more reliable by giving an attacker better visibility into the operating system’s internal state.
This class of bug is especially sensitive in HID-handling paths because input devices are common, deeply trusted interfaces. If the bug is reachable through crafted device input, the attacker may be able to trigger the flaw without needing full administrative control first.
How organisations should assess exposure
Exposure assessment starts with asset inventory: identify Linux systems that run the affected kernel line, then determine whether they use the HID subsystem in contexts where untrusted peripherals, passthrough, or local device access are possible. Internal exposure is often easier to miss than internet exposure, so workstation, server, virtual desktop, and lab environments all deserve review.
Use vendor advisories and patch notes for exact fixed versions, then confirm whether the affected systems are internet-facing, remotely managed, or accessible to users with physical device access. Where you cannot immediately patch, treat the flaw as a priority disclosure issue rather than a theoretical code-quality defect.
For broader vulnerability triage and prioritisation, the Vulnerability Management Guide is useful for tying asset scope, KEV status, verification, and remediation tracking into one workflow.
Remediation and post-exploitation review
Remediation should prioritise the vendor fix as soon as possible, with compensating controls used only as a temporary bridge. If patching is delayed, reduce exposure by limiting untrusted HID attachment paths, constraining local access where feasible, and monitoring for unusual kernel or device-event behaviour.
After patching, review the host for signs that the flaw was used before remediation. Because the issue is a memory leak rather than a straightforward crash, compromise review should focus on whether sensitive kernel data may have been exposed, whether follow-on exploitation was attempted, and whether any adjacent credentials, sessions, or security material need rotation.
When you need a real-world sense of how exposed credentials and secrets turn a software flaw into a broader incident, the State of NHI & AI Agent Breach Report 2026 provides relevant breach patterns around stolen secrets and downstream abuse.
Risk and Threat Considerations
This vulnerability is risky because kernel memory disclosure can give an attacker information that should have remained hidden, and that information can materially improve the odds of follow-on compromise. In practice, data leakage at the kernel layer can erode the assumptions that patching, hardening, and isolation are supposed to provide.
Failure mechanism: A crafted HID report reaches the vulnerable code path before the resource has been properly initialised, allowing memory contents to be read back instead of valid data.
Impact: The attacker may gain access to kernel memory, which can expose secrets, weaken exploit mitigations, and increase the effectiveness of later local privilege escalation or persistence attempts.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, CIS Controls v8 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | SI-7 — Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | Memory-disclosure flaws require integrity checks and trusted remediation verification. |
| AU-6 — Audit Record Review, Analysis, and Reporting | Post-exploitation review depends on analysing logs and host telemetry for suspicious activity. | |
| Recommendation — Validate kernel integrity and confirm remediation before returning affected hosts to service. Review host and device telemetry for signs the vulnerability was exercised before patching. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-4 — Secure Configuration of Enterprise Assets and Software | Kernel vulnerability exposure is reduced by hardened configuration and controlled device access. |
| Recommendation — Harden affected Linux systems and restrict unnecessary HID/device exposure until patched. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.PS-03 — Platform Security | Kernel flaws fall under platform security because they weaken the operating system base layer. |
| Recommendation — Apply platform-security controls that reduce kernel attack surface and accelerate patch deployment. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
Why practitioners should care: Treat this as a host-level exposure issue, not just a kernel bug. Even when the immediate effect is “only” information disclosure, leaked kernel state can materially change the risk picture for the affected machine and any services running on it.
What to watch for: Prioritise systems with recent untrusted HID interaction, unusual device attachment histories, or other local-access paths that make crafted input more plausible. If a host was exposed before remediation, add a compromise review step rather than assuming patching alone is sufficient.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- CVE-2025-38352 (Linux Kernel Time-of-Check Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Condition)
- CVE-2024-53150 (Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Read)
- CVE-2024-53197 (Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Access)
- How should security teams validate their exposure to a Linux kernel privilege escalation flaw before attackers use it in production?