VulnerabilityPublished 4 May 2026Updated 8 May 2026

CVE-2026-40251: Incusd · Incus Vulnerable to Panic via Snapshot Bounds Check

Affects github.com/lxc/incus/v6/cmd/incusdSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-40251· High 7.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 7.0.0 soon.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 May 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 github.com/lxc/incus/v6/cmd/incusd to 7.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/lxc/incus/v6/cmd/incusd	Affected <7.0.0	Fixed in 7.0.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Summary Missing validation logic in the storage volume import logic allows an authenticated user with access to Incus' storage volume feature to cause the Incus daemon to crash. Repeated use of this issue can be used to keep Incus offline causing a denial of service. ### Details The backup restore subsystem contains an out-of-bounds panic vulnerability caused by an invalid bounds check when indexing snapshot metadata arrays. The same flawed pattern also appears in the migration path. When iterating through physical snapshots provided in a backup archive, the loop uses the index i to look up corresponding metadata in the parsed Config.Snapshots and Config.VolumeSnapshots slices. To ensure that the metadata slice is long enough, the code uses the guard condition len(slice) >= i-1. This check is incorrect because it can still evaluate to true when the subsequent slice[i] access is out of bounds, including when i >= len(slice), triggering a runtime panic. An attacker can trigger this by submitting a backup archive that contains physical snapshot directories, which drive the loop variable i, while supplying a tampered index.yaml with an empty or truncated snapshot metadata array. This causes the daemon to index beyond the end of the metadata slice and crash, resulting in immediate denial of service on the node. Affected File: https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/internal/server/storage/backend.go Affected Code: ``` func (b *backend) CreateInstanceFromBackup(srcBackup backup.Info, srcData io.ReadSeeker, op *operations.Operation) (func(instance.Instance) error, revert.Hook, error) { [...] postHook := func(inst instance.Instance) error { [...] for i, backupFileSnap := range srcBackup.Snapshots { var volumeSnapDescription string var volumeSnapConfig map[string]string var volumeSnapExpiryDate time.Time var volumeSnapCreationDate time.Time // Check if snapshot volume config is available for restore and matches snapshot name. if srcBackup.Config != nil { if len(srcBackup.Config.Snapshots) >= i-1 && srcBackup.Config.Snapshots[i] != nil && srcBackup.Config.Snapshots[i].Name == backupFileSnap { // Use instance snapshot's creation date if snap info available. volumeSnapCreationDate = srcBackup.Config.Snapshots[i].CreatedAt } if len(srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots) >= i-1 && srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i] != nil && srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].Name == backupFileSnap { // If the backup restore interface provides volume snapshot config use it, // otherwise use default volume config for the storage pool. volumeSnapDescription = srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].Description volumeSnapConfig = srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].Config if srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].ExpiresAt != nil { volumeSnapExpiryDate = *srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].ExpiresAt } // Use volume's creation date if available. if !srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].CreatedAt.IsZero() { volumeSnapCreationDate = srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].CreatedAt } } } [...] } [...] } [...] } [...] func (b *backend) CreateInstanceFromMigration(inst instance.Instance, conn io.ReadWriteCloser, args localMigration.VolumeTargetArgs, op *operations.Operation) error { [...] if !isRemoteClusterMove || args.StoragePool != "" { for i, snapshot := range args.Snapshots { snapName := snapshot.GetName() newSnapshotName := drivers.GetSnapshotVolumeName(inst.Name(), snapName) snapConfig := vol.Config() // Use parent volume config by default. snapDescription := volumeDescription // Use parent volume description by default. snapExpiryDate := time.Time{} snapCreationDate := time.Time{} // If the source snapshot config is available, use that. if srcInfo != nil && srcInfo.Config != nil { if len(srcInfo.Config.Snapshots) >= i-1 && srcInfo.Config.Snapshots[i] != nil && srcInfo.Config.Snapshots[i].Name == snapName { // Use instance snapshot's creation date if snap info available. snapCreationDate = srcInfo.Config.Snapshots[i].CreatedAt } if len(srcInfo.Config.VolumeSnapshots) >= i-1 && srcInfo.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i] != nil && srcInfo.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].Name == snapName { // Check if snapshot volume config is available then use it. snapDescription = srcInfo.Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].Description snapC

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).
CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
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
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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
Overflow 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, CWE-129

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats