CVE-2026-23243VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jul 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: kernel-rt security, bug fix, and enhancement update

Affects Red Hat kernel-rt security,Source GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-23243· High 7.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat kernel-rt security, soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 11:31 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in a6a3e4af10993cb9e4b8f0548680aba0ab5f3b0d, 205955f29c26330b1dc7fdeadd5bb97c38e26f56, 5551b02fdbfd85a325bb857f3a8f9c9f33397ed2 +5

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 18 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 29 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < a6a3e4af10993cb9e4b8f0548680aba0ab5f3b0d	Fixed in a6a3e4af10993cb9e4b8f0548680aba0ab5f3b0d
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < 205955f29c26330b1dc7fdeadd5bb97c38e26f56	Fixed in 205955f29c26330b1dc7fdeadd5bb97c38e26f56
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < 5551b02fdbfd85a325bb857f3a8f9c9f33397ed2	Fixed in 5551b02fdbfd85a325bb857f3a8f9c9f33397ed2
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < 1371ef6b1ecf3676b8942f5dfb3634fb0648128e	Fixed in 1371ef6b1ecf3676b8942f5dfb3634fb0648128e
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < 362e45fd9069ffa1523f9f1633b606ebf72060d7	Fixed in 362e45fd9069ffa1523f9f1633b606ebf72060d7
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 2be8e3ee8efd6f99ce454115c29d09750915021a, < 52ab82cc5cf8ada5c3fb6ffe8f32fdb2fc27a34b	Fixed in 52ab82cc5cf8ada5c3fb6ffe8f32fdb2fc27a34b

AI-suggested

A security update for the kernel-rt packages is available from Red Hat for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support. Users should apply the update promptly and reboot affected systems to ensure the fixes take effect. For detailed update instructions, refer to Red Hat's official advisory and documentation at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update and rebooting.

Description

This Red Hat Security Advisory addresses multiple critical vulnerabilities in the kernel-rt packages, which provide the Real Time Linux Kernel for systems requiring high determinism. The update fixes several security issues including denial of service, memory corruption, use-after-free, double free, and validation errors across various kernel subsystems such as RDMA, netfilter, USBIP, TCP, and others. The advisory applies to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Real Time 7 Extended Lifecycle Support. Systems must be rebooted after applying the update for the fixes to take effect.

Impact

The vulnerabilities fixed in this advisory have a critical security impact, including potential denial of service and memory corruption, which could lead to system instability or crashes. Some issues involve use-after-free and double free bugs that could be exploited to cause memory corruption. Validation errors in network and device subsystems could allow malformed packets or inputs to disrupt kernel operations. The overall impact affects system reliability and security on affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux Real Time 7 systems.

Summary

The kernel-rt packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support contain multiple security vulnerabilities affecting components like RDMA umad (CVE-2026-23243), netfilter nf_conntrack_h323 (CVE-2026-23455), CAN raw socket handling (CVE-2026-31532), USBIP packet validation (CVE-2026-31607), and others. These vulnerabilities include denial of service, memory corruption, use-after-free, double free, and improper validation issues. The advisory provides fixes for these vulnerabilities and additional bug fixes and enhancements. The update requires a system reboot to apply changes.

CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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-366Race Condition within a Thread (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
If two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.
Architecture and Design
Use locking functionality. This is the recommended solution. Implement some form of locking mechanism around code which alters or reads persistent data in a multithreaded environment.
Architecture and Design
Create resource-locking validation checks. If no inherent locking mechanisms exist, use flags and signals to enforce your own blocking scheme when resources are being used by other threads of execution.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-805Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
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
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
SOAP Array Overflow (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
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.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-843Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.
CWE-1285Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
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.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-130Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
Implementation
When processing structured incoming data containing a size field followed by raw data, ensure that you identify and resolve any inconsistencies between the size field and the actual size of the data.
Implementation
Do not let the user control the size of the buffer.
Implementation
Validate that the length of the user-supplied data is consistent with the buffer size.
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
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
If the assertion statement is required (e.g., for security or reliability), change the invoking code to avoid the conditions that trigger the assertion.
Implementation
Consider changing the assertion to some other less "fatal" error. This might not be easy to implement, since other code may be needed to handle the error.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operations non-reachable from directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-825Expired Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Architecture and Design
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-821Incorrect Synchronization (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.
CWE-1341Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product attempts to close or release a resource or handle more than once, without any successful open between the close operations.
Implementation
Change the code's logic so that the resource is only closed once. This might require simplifying or refactoring. This fix can be simple to do in small code blocks, but more difficult when multiple closes are buried within complex conditionals.
Implementation · Refactoring
It can be effective to implement a flag that is (1) set when the resource is opened, (2) cleared when it is closed, and (3) checked before closing. This approach can be useful when there are disparate cases in which closes must be performed.
Implementation · Refactoring
When closing a resource, set the resource's associated variable to NULL or equivalent value for the given language. Some APIs will ignore this null value without causing errors.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-364Signal Handler Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design
Design signal handlers to only set flags, rather than perform complex functionality. These flags can then be checked and acted upon within the main program loop.
Implementation
Only use reentrant functions within signal handlers. Also, use validation to ensure that state is consistent while performing asynchronous actions that affect the state of execution.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

GCVE source: db.gcve.eu
Csaf Category: csaf_security_advisory
Csaf Version: 2.0
Publisher: Red Hat Product Security
Advisory ID: RHSA-2026:41236
Vendor Severity: critical
CVE Count: 16
Additional Cves: CVE-2026-23455, CVE-2026-31532, CVE-2026-31607, CVE-2026-31685, CVE-2026-43037, CVE-2026-43110, CVE-2026-43125, CVE-2026-43158, CVE-2026-43163, CVE-2026-43190, CVE-2026-43198, CVE-2026-45852, CVE-2026-46090, CVE-2026-46181, CVE-2026-46243

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 11:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-131, CWE-125, CWE-366 +10

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats