VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jul 2026Updated 19 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-53392: Linux kernel · NFSv4/flexfiles: reject zero filehandle version count

Affects Linux kernelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in eeabb9020721db6bc132e68eeae380b8d4fb4b04 : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS

0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers can reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-10-16.

Patch

Available – fixed in eeabb9020721db6bc132e68eeae380b8d4fb4b04, d8c90c7cc061265d5f2813a1f5c82ef2f4707e67, be7829715e341b42846437dd9e721005db59f0cc +5

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

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jul 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < eeabb9020721db6bc132e68eeae380b8d4fb4b04	Fixed in eeabb9020721db6bc132e68eeae380b8d4fb4b04
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < d8c90c7cc061265d5f2813a1f5c82ef2f4707e67	Fixed in d8c90c7cc061265d5f2813a1f5c82ef2f4707e67
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < be7829715e341b42846437dd9e721005db59f0cc	Fixed in be7829715e341b42846437dd9e721005db59f0cc
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < 9033591535c066726f5b505126ccb4068b98fa4f	Fixed in 9033591535c066726f5b505126ccb4068b98fa4f
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < 7779c85028a0676fb190cde4f0c540f4f8e97761	Fixed in 7779c85028a0676fb190cde4f0c540f4f8e97761
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ d67ae825a59d639e4d8b82413af84d854617a87e, < 2131ed64b767ffa8bcdb3677d90f3964e39aabc8	Fixed in 2131ed64b767ffa8bcdb3677d90f3964e39aabc8

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: NFSv4/flexfiles: reject zero filehandle version count ff_layout_alloc_lseg() decodes the filehandle-version array count from the flexfiles layout body. The value is used as the count for kzalloc_objs(), and the current code only rejects NULL. A zero count yields ZERO_SIZE_PTR, which can be stored in dss_info->fh_versions even though later flexfiles paths assume that at least one filehandle version exists. Reject fh_count == 0 before the allocation, matching the existing zero version_count validation in the flexfiles GETDEVICEINFO parser. A QEMU/KASAN run with a malformed flexfiles layout hit: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000010-0x0000000000000017] RIP: 0010:ff_layout_encode_ff_layoutupdate.isra.0+0x15f/0x750 ff_layout_encode_layoutreturn+0x683/0x970 nfs4_xdr_enc_layoutreturn+0x278/0x3a0 Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception The patched kernel rejects the malformed layout without KASAN/oops/panic, and a valid fh_count=1 regression still opens, reads, and unmounts cleanly.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats