The Linux/Unix host has one or more packages installed that are impacted by a vulnerability without a vendor supplied patch available.

  - In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside     of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call     napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a     safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue     config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in     preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [     4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [     4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [     4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904]     check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199]     ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505]     ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [     4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0     [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300     [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...]     I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that     last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and     DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a     context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call     napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

Note that Nessus relies on the presence of the package as reported by the vendor.

Linux/Unix ホストには、ベンダーが提供するパッチが利用できない脆弱性の影響を受ける複数のパッケージがインストールされています。

  - Linux カーネルにおいて、以下の脆弱性は解決されました： ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

Nessus は、ベンダーによって報告されたパッケージの存在に依存していることに注意してください。

リモートの Azure Linux 3.0 ホストにインストールされているカーネルのバージョンは、テスト済みのバージョンより前です。したがって、CVE-2024-42071 のアドバイザリに記載されている脆弱性の影響を受けます。

  - Linux カーネルでは、以下の脆弱性が解決されています: ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

Nessus はこの問題をテストしておらず、代わりにアプリケーションが自己報告するバージョン番号にのみ依存していることに注意してください。

Linux/Unix 主机中安装的一个或多个程序包受到一个漏洞影响，而供应商没有提供补丁程序。

  - 在 Linux 内核中，已解决以下漏洞： ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

请注意，Nessus 依赖供应商报告的程序包是否存在进行判断。

The version of kernel installed on the remote CBL Mariner 2.0 host is prior to tested version. It is, therefore, affected by a vulnerability as referenced in the CVE-2024-42071 advisory.

  - In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside     of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call     napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a     safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue     config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in     preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [     4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [     4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [     4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904]     check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199]     ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505]     ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [     4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0     [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300     [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...]     I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that     last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and     DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a     context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call     napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

Note that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.

The version of kernel installed on the remote Azure Linux 3.0 host is prior to tested version. It is, therefore, affected by a vulnerability as referenced in the CVE-2024-42071 advisory.

  - In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside     of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call     napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a     safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue     config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in     preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [     4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [     4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [     4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904]     check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199]     ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505]     ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [     4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0     [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300     [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...]     I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that     last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and     DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a     context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call     napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

Note that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.

遠端 Azure Linux 3.0 主機上安裝的核心版本比測試版舊。因此，此版本會受到 CVE-2024-42071 公告中提及的一個弱點影響。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

請注意，Nessus 並未測試此問題，而是僅依據應用程式自我報告的版本號碼作出判斷。

远程 Azure Linux 3.0 主机上安装的内核版本低于 测试的版本。因此，该程序受到 CVE-2024-42071 公告中提及的一个漏洞影响。

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

请注意，Nessus 尚未测试此问题，而是只依据应用程序自我报告的版本号进行判断。

Linux/Unix 主機上安裝了一個或多個受到弱點影響的套件，且供應商未提供可用的修補程式。

  - 在 Linux 核心中，已解決下列弱點： ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context. This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out: [ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] <TASK> [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...] I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */ and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq()); Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly. (CVE-2024-42071)

請注意，Nessus 依賴供應商報告的套件存在。

ID	Name	Product	Family	Published	Updated	Severity
229160	Linux Distros Unpatched Vulnerability : CVE-2024-42071	Nessus	Misc.	3/5/2025	9/15/2025	medium
229160	Linux Distros のパッチ未適用の脆弱性: CVE-2024-42071	Nessus	Misc.	3/5/2025	9/15/2025	medium
215274	Azure Linux 3.0 セキュリティ更新カーネルCVE-2024-42071	Nessus	Azure Linux Local Security Checks	2/10/2025	9/15/2025	medium
229160	Linux Distros 未修补的漏洞: CVE-2024-42071	Nessus	Misc.	3/5/2025	9/15/2025	medium
205361	CBL Mariner 2.0 Security Update: kernel (CVE-2024-42071)	Nessus	MarinerOS Local Security Checks	8/11/2024	2/10/2025	medium
215274	Azure Linux 3.0 Security Update: kernel (CVE-2024-42071)	Nessus	Azure Linux Local Security Checks	2/10/2025	9/15/2025	medium
215274	Azure Linux 3.0 安全性更新核心 (CVE-2024-42071)	Nessus	Azure Linux Local Security Checks	2/10/2025	9/15/2025	medium
215274	Azure Linux 3.0 安全更新内核 (CVE-2024-42071)	Nessus	Azure Linux Local Security Checks	2/10/2025	9/15/2025	medium
229160	Linux Distros 未修補弱點：CVE-2024-42071	Nessus	Misc.	3/5/2025	9/15/2025	medium

Detections

Analytics

Plugins Search

medium

medium

medium

medium

medium

medium

medium

medium

medium