CVE-2026-31669VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jul 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

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

Affects Red Hat kernel security,Source GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-31669· Critical 9.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical · fixed in Red Hat package updates : patch Red Hat kernel security, as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:00 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

Patch: Available – fixed in fb1f54b7d16f393b8b65d328410f78b4beea8fcc, f6e1f25fa5e733570f6d6fe37a4dfed2a0deba47, eb9c6aeb512f877cf397deb1e4526f646c70e4a7 +4

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 24 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 ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < fb1f54b7d16f393b8b65d328410f78b4beea8fcc	Fixed in fb1f54b7d16f393b8b65d328410f78b4beea8fcc
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < f6e1f25fa5e733570f6d6fe37a4dfed2a0deba47	Fixed in f6e1f25fa5e733570f6d6fe37a4dfed2a0deba47
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < eb9c6aeb512f877cf397deb1e4526f646c70e4a7	Fixed in eb9c6aeb512f877cf397deb1e4526f646c70e4a7
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < b313e9037d98c13938740e5ebda7852929366dff	Fixed in b313e9037d98c13938740e5ebda7852929366dff
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < 15fa9ead4d5e6b6b9c794e84144146c917f2cb62	Fixed in 15fa9ead4d5e6b6b9c794e84144146c917f2cb62
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ b19bc2945b40b9fd38e835700907ffe8534ef0de, < 9b55b253907e7431210483519c5ad711a37dafa1	Fixed in 9b55b253907e7431210483519c5ad711a37dafa1

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated kernel packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 that address these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the updates as provided by Red Hat and reboot their systems to ensure the fixes take effect. Detailed instructions for applying the update are available in Red Hat's advisory and knowledge base articles. No additional mitigations are specified beyond applying the official update.

Description

Red Hat has issued a security advisory for multiple vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel packages included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2. The update addresses several security flaws including use-after-free, double unpinning, out-of-bounds writes, and improper validation issues across various kernel subsystems such as mptcp, RDMA, ALSA, dlm, netfilter, and ipv6. These vulnerabilities have been assigned CVE identifiers and are rated with an overall security impact of Important by Red Hat. The advisory also includes bug fixes and enhancements unrelated to security. Systems must be updated and rebooted to apply these fixes.

Impact

The vulnerabilities fixed in this advisory affect the Linux kernel, the core component of the operating system, and involve memory safety issues such as use-after-free and double unpinning, as well as validation errors that could lead to out-of-bounds writes or improper resource handling. These issues could potentially lead to system crashes, denial of service, or privilege escalation if exploited. Red Hat rates the overall security impact as Important. No known active exploitation or public exploit code is reported at this time.

Summary

This Red Hat security advisory covers multiple vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2. Key security fixes include: a slab-use-after-free in the mptcp subsystem (CVE-2026-31669), a double dma_buf_unpin in RDMA/umem (CVE-2026-43128), out-of-bounds write checks in ALSA usb-audio (CVE-2026-43279), length validation in dlm_search_rsb_tree (CVE-2026-43125), strict action count checks in netfilter flowtable (CVE-2026-43329), reserved headroom in ipv6 rpl (CVE-2026-43501), use-after-free in ALSA aloop (CVE-2026-46090), misuse of RCU in mlx4_srq_event (CVE-2026-46181), and preemption prevention of oopsing TASK_DEAD tasks (CVE-2026-46173). These fixes address memory safety and validation issues that could impact kernel stability and security. The advisory also notes a warning about possible recursive locking in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. The update requires a system reboot to take effect. No public exploit code or in-the-wild exploitation is reported. The advisory references Red Hat's errata and update articles for detailed patch application instructions.

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-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-911Improper Update of Reference Count (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product uses a reference count to manage a resource, but it does not update or incorrectly updates the reference count.
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended 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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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-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).
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-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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 06:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-763, CWE-130, CWE-911 +6

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats