VulnerabilityPublished 1 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-35094: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · Expired Pointer Dereference

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Apr 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10libinput	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7libinput	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8libinput	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9libinput	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-35094, organizations should first verify if Lua plugin support is enabled in libinput and whether the compositor loads such plugins. If Lua plugins are not required, disabling this feature can eliminate the attack vector. Restrict write permissions on system directories where Lua plugins are loaded to trusted administrators only, preventing unauthorized plugin deployment. Monitor system logs for unusual entries that may indicate exploitation attempts involving expired pointers. Apply patches from Red Hat promptly once they become available. Additionally, implement strict local access controls and auditing to detect and prevent unauthorized file placements. Employ runtime protections such as memory safety tools or hardened garbage collection mechanisms if feasible. Regularly review and update security policies governing plugin management and local privilege assignments to minimize risk.

Description

A flaw was found in libinput. An attacker capable of deploying a Lua plugin file in specific system directories can exploit a dangling pointer vulnerability. This occurs when a garbage collection cleanup function is called, leaving a pointer that can then be printed to system logs. This could potentially expose sensitive data if the memory location is re-used, leading to information disclosure. For this exploit to work, Lua plugins must be enabled in libinput and loaded by the compositor.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-35094 is potential information disclosure through system logs, which may contain sensitive data from memory locations referenced by the dangling pointer. While the confidentiality impact is limited, exposure of sensitive information could aid attackers in further reconnaissance or privilege escalation. The vulnerability requires local access and the ability to deploy Lua plugins, limiting the attack surface to insiders or attackers who have already compromised a low-privilege account. There is no impact on system integrity or availability, so the threat does not directly cause system disruption or data modification. However, organizations relying on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 with enabled Lua plugins in libinput, especially in environments with sensitive graphical sessions, could face increased risk of data leakage. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability should be addressed proactively to prevent future exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Apr 2026, 14:24 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats