VulnerabilityPublished 5 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-25702: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server · Improper Access Control

Affects SUSE Linux Enterprise ServerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server kernel package to 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server kernel package to 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SUSE Linux Enterprise Serverkernel	Affected ≥ 9e6d9d4601768c75fdb0bad3fbbe636e748939c2, < 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d	Fixed in 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d

AI-suggested

Monitor SUSE’s official security advisories closely for the release of patches addressing CVE-2026-25702 and apply them immediately upon availability.
If you cannot patch yet, implement compensating controls such as deploying external firewall appliances or network intrusion prevention systems (IPS) to enforce network traffic filtering outside the affected hosts.
Restrict network access to critical systems running affected versions of SLES by using network segmentation and strict access control lists (ACLs) at the perimeter and internal network layers.
Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to monitor for anomalous network traffic patterns that may indicate firewall bypass attempts.
Review and harden nftables configurations to minimize exposure, including disabling unnecessary services and ports.
Consider temporary use of alternative firewall tools or kernel modules if feasible and supported.
Maintain robust logging and monitoring to detect suspicious activity early.
Educate system administrators about the vulnerability and the importance of timely patching and network defense in depth strategies. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing layered network controls and proactive monitoring to mitigate risk until a patch is applied.

Description

A Improper Access Control vulnerability in the kernel of SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP5 breaks nftables, causing firewall rules applied via nftables to not be effective.This issue affects SUSE Linux Enterprise Server: from 9e6d9d4601768c75fdb0bad3fbbe636e748939c2 before 9c294edb7085fb91650bc12233495a8974c5ff2d.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-25702 is the failure of firewall rules enforced via nftables on affected SUSE Linux Enterprise Server systems. This failure compromises network security by allowing unauthorized or malicious traffic to pass through what should be a controlled boundary. As a result, attackers could gain unauthorized access to internal systems, exfiltrate sensitive data, or disrupt services by bypassing firewall protections. The compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability can lead to data breaches, service outages, and increased risk of lateral movement within enterprise networks. Organizations that rely heavily on SLES for critical infrastructure or that use nftables as a primary firewall mechanism are particularly vulnerable. The ease of exploitation (no privileges or user interaction required) increases the risk of automated or remote attacks. This could lead to widespread exploitation, especially in environments with delayed patching or inadequate network segmentation.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2026-25702 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Mar 2026, 07:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats