VulnerabilityPublished 15 Aug 2026Updated 19 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-72029: Linux kernel · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects Linux kernelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High · fixed in 155851e501d6c649cbcfcca6472dc26269b04b6b : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% 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 cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Total control over the software or total information disclosure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-10-16.

Patch

Available – fixed in 155851e501d6c649cbcfcca6472dc26269b04b6b, 526b8ef54668780c8f69e0211c342763d5dcbad1, 77f0023f22f6a2616ae128e9c93961b24ae52611 +3

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 15 Aug 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 ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 155851e501d6c649cbcfcca6472dc26269b04b6b	Fixed in 155851e501d6c649cbcfcca6472dc26269b04b6b
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 526b8ef54668780c8f69e0211c342763d5dcbad1	Fixed in 526b8ef54668780c8f69e0211c342763d5dcbad1
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 77f0023f22f6a2616ae128e9c93961b24ae52611	Fixed in 77f0023f22f6a2616ae128e9c93961b24ae52611
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 55cfea8e8d9117ad086d1e1a0ff87f306f8e3ad0	Fixed in 55cfea8e8d9117ad086d1e1a0ff87f306f8e3ad0
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 07f5eb6d268a37bd9e131079489655cd599182e0	Fixed in 07f5eb6d268a37bd9e131079489655cd599182e0
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 1f52d7b622854b8bd7a1be3de095ca2e1f77098e, < 2b822df8e498aa6ca828e16afd8ffec27f7e4c88	Fixed in 2b822df8e498aa6ca828e16afd8ffec27f7e4c88

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: wwan: iosm: bound device offsets in the MUX downlink decoder mux_dl_adb_decode() walks a chain of aggregated datagram tables using offsets and lengths taken from the modem. first_table_index, next_table_index, table_length, datagram_index and datagram_length are all device supplied le values. Only first_table_index was checked, and only for being non zero. The decoder then formed adth = block + adth_index and read the table header and the datagram entries with no bound against the received skb. A modem that reports an index or a length past the downlink buffer makes the decoder read out of bounds. The buffer is IPC_MEM_MAX_DL_MUX_LITE_BUF_SIZE and skb->len is at most that, so skb->len is the real limit, but none of these in band offsets were checked against it. The table chain is also followed with no forward progress check. The loop takes the next table from adth->next_table_index and stops only when that reaches zero. A modem can stage two tables that point at each other, so the loop never ends. It runs in softirq and clones the skb on every pass. Validate every device offset and length against skb->len before use. The block header must fit. Each table header, on entry and after every next_table_index, must lie inside the skb. The datagram table must fit. Each datagram index and length must stay inside the skb. The header padding must not exceed the datagram length so the receive length does not wrap. Require each next_table_index to move forward so the chain cannot cycle. This was reproduced under KASAN as a slab out of bounds read on a normal downlink receive once the iosm net device is up.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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
Overread Buffers (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-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats