Analyst readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
CVE-2022-2601 is a GRUB2 bootloader flaw triggered by a crafted PF2 font file. If abused, it can corrupt bootloader memory and may bypass Secure Boot protections. The issue matters most for systems relying on Secure Boot as a trust boundary, but the source bundle does not show confirmed active exploitation.
Executive priority
Treat as high priority for Secure Boot-dependent environments and regulated systems. The main risk is erosion of boot trust, not broad remote compromise. Remediation should be planned carefully because Secure Boot-related updates have documented operational disruption risk for some Linux users.
Technical view
grub_font_construct_glyph() can miscalculate max_glyph_size for a malicious PF2 font, allocate an undersized glyph buffer, and perform a heap out-of-bounds write. The CVSS vector is local, low complexity, no privileges, user interaction required, changed scope, with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact.
Likely exposure
Exposure is likely on systems using grub2 2.06 or lower, especially Linux boot chains where GRUB2 is used with UEFI Secure Boot. Appliance exposure should be checked against vendor advisories, including NetApp’s referenced advisory. Evidence in the bundle does not identify specific distro package versions beyond GRUB2 2.06 and lower.
Exploitation context
The bundle states a crafted PF2 font may allow Secure Boot circumvention. It does not provide evidence of in-the-wild exploitation, and CISA KEV status is false. Exploitation appears local and requires user interaction, but boot-chain impact raises business risk above a normal local memory corruption issue.
Researcher notes
Focus validation on boot-chain composition: GRUB2 version, Secure Boot state, distribution patches, and appliance vendor status. The source bundle supports memory corruption and Secure Boot bypass potential, but does not include exploit maturity, proof-of-concept status, or definitive patch identifiers.
Mitigation direction
- Check OS, appliance, and distribution advisories for GRUB2 updates addressing CVE-2022-2601.
- Apply vendor-approved GRUB2 and Secure Boot remediation after compatibility testing.
- Do not deploy Secure Boot revocation updates without staged boot testing.
- Prioritize systems where Secure Boot is a control requirement.
- Track vendor guidance for recovery steps if boot issues occur.
Validation and detection
- Inventory endpoints and servers running grub2 2.06 or lower.
- Confirm whether UEFI Secure Boot is enabled on affected systems.
- Review vendor advisories for each Linux distribution or appliance image.
- Test boot success after updates on representative hardware.
- Verify change records include rollback or recovery media planning.
Public sources used
Based on public source material and reviewed before publication.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-122: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCWE-787: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2022-2601 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- High
- CVSS
- 8.6 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H1.86CISA-ADPVulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
8.6HighVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112975#c0CVE reference, redhat
- https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230203-0004/CVE reference, redhat
- GLSA-202311-14CVE reference, redhat · vendor-advisory
- https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/08/a-patch-microsoft-spent-2-years-preparing-is-making-a-mess-for-some-linux-users/CVE reference, CVE
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Heap-based Buffer Overflow
Heap-based Buffer Overflow represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.
Out-of-bounds Write
Out-of-bounds Write represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.