CVE-2026-31488VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jul 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

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

Affects Red Hat kernel security,Source GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-31488· High 7.8

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

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 16:21 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in da1d0ed31e9802fd99384f43cc63678a5a11cb41, aed3d041ab061ec8a64f50a3edda0f4db7280025, 111208b5b7ebcdadb3f922cc52d8425f0fa91b33 +3

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 22 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 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 ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < da1d0ed31e9802fd99384f43cc63678a5a11cb41	Fixed in da1d0ed31e9802fd99384f43cc63678a5a11cb41
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < aed3d041ab061ec8a64f50a3edda0f4db7280025	Fixed in aed3d041ab061ec8a64f50a3edda0f4db7280025
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < 111208b5b7ebcdadb3f922cc52d8425f0fa91b33	Fixed in 111208b5b7ebcdadb3f922cc52d8425f0fa91b33
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < 21159d8b335a6b9f44cbb506733013a902ae2da4	Fixed in 21159d8b335a6b9f44cbb506733013a902ae2da4
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < 10862e344b4d6434642a48c87d765813fc0b0ba7	Fixed in 10862e344b4d6434642a48c87d765813fc0b0ba7
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 17ce8a6907f77b7ac97ddaa071d8a1f6e06ce85b, < 8a5edc97fd9c6415ff2eff872748439a97e3c3d8	Fixed in 8a5edc97fd9c6415ff2eff872748439a97e3c3d8

AI-suggested

A security update for the Linux kernel packages is available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4. Users should apply the update as provided by Red Hat and reboot their systems to ensure the fixes take effect. Refer to Red Hat's official update documentation for detailed instructions. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor.

Description

Red Hat has issued a security advisory for the Linux kernel packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4, addressing multiple vulnerabilities. The update includes fixes for issues in AMD display mode validation, network VLAN header validation, xfrm_state list handling, DRM GEM plane dimension calculation, and race conditions in nvmet-tcp. These vulnerabilities have been assigned CVE identifiers CVE-2026-31488, CVE-2026-31684, CVE-2026-46116, CVE-2026-46209, and CVE-2026-46135. The advisory also includes bug fixes and enhancements related to NVMe-FC panic during controller reset tests. Systems must be rebooted after applying the update for changes to take effect.

Impact

The vulnerabilities fixed in this advisory affect core kernel components related to display, networking, and storage subsystems. They could potentially lead to incorrect processing of display mode changes, improper validation of network VLAN headers, race conditions in network transport handling, and inconsistent framebuffer initialization. These issues may impact system stability, security, or data integrity. The advisory rates the impact as Important but does not provide a CVSS score. No known exploitation in the wild has been reported.

CWE-1288Improper Validation of Consistency within Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
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-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-763Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
Implementation
Only call matching memory management functions. Do not mix and match routines. For example, when you allocate a buffer with malloc(), dispose of the original pointer with free().
Implementation
When programming in C++, consider using smart pointers provided by the boost library to help correctly and consistently manage memory.
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.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
Requirements
Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Forced Integer Overflow (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

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 16:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1288, CWE-1285, CWE-763 +2

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats