{"vulnerability": "CVE-2024-50058", "sightings": [{"uuid": "ba710794-6774-4349-a14d-7fef74087d6c", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-50058", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/cvedetector/8562", "content": "{\n  \"Source\": \"CVE FEED\",\n  \"Title\": \"CVE-2024-50058 - \"Linux kernel Derefence in UART shutdown\"\", \n  \"Content\": \"CVE ID : CVE-2024-50058 \nPublished : Oct. 21, 2024, 8:15 p.m. | 16\u00a0minutes ago \nDescription : In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  \n  \nserial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too  \n  \nCommit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part  \n3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so  \nthe commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that  \nprotection, there is an unprotected \"uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);\"  \ncall. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the  \nreason why we do not see lots of these reports.  \n  \nOr it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P.  \n  \nUntil the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this  \ndereference to the if too.  \n  \nI got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks. \nSeverity: 0.0 | NA \nVisit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...\",\n  \"Detection Date\": \"21 Oct 2024\",\n  \"Type\": \"Vulnerability\"\n}\n\ud83d\udd39 t.me/cvedetector \ud83d\udd39", "creation_timestamp": "2024-10-21T22:43:16.000000Z"}, {"uuid": "b89a3ca4-d907-4d89-8e1a-bbd57462ed8f", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "c933734a-9be8-4142-889e-26e95c752803", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-50058", "type": "seen", "source": "https://vulnerability.circl.lu/bundle/816dcc8e-f25a-4895-9b59-1bbd9caeccb8", "content": "", "creation_timestamp": "2025-12-03T14:14:49.267740Z"}]}