CVE-2026-31706 : Detail

CVE-2026-31706

8.8
/
High
0.06%V4
Network
2026-05-01
14h16 +00:00
2026-05-06
20h27 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: validate num_aces and harden ACE walk in smb_inherit_dacl() smb_inherit_dacl() trusts the on-disk num_aces value from the parent directory's DACL xattr and uses it to size a heap allocation: aces_base = kmalloc(sizeof(struct smb_ace) * num_aces * 2, ...); num_aces is a u16 read from le16_to_cpu(parent_pdacl->num_aces) without checking that it is consistent with the declared pdacl_size. An authenticated client whose parent directory's security.NTACL is tampered (e.g. via offline xattr corruption or a concurrent path that bypasses parse_dacl()) can present num_aces = 65535 with minimal actual ACE data. This causes a ~8 MB allocation (not kzalloc, so uninitialized) that the subsequent loop only partially populates, and may also overflow the three-way size_t multiply on 32-bit kernels. Additionally, the ACE walk loop uses the weaker offsetof(struct smb_ace, access_req) minimum size check rather than the minimum valid on-wire ACE size, and does not reject ACEs whose declared size is below the minimum. Reproduced on UML + KASAN + LOCKDEP against the real ksmbd code path. A legitimate mount.cifs client creates a parent directory over SMB (ksmbd writes a valid security.NTACL xattr), then the NTACL blob on the backing filesystem is rewritten to set num_aces = 0xFFFF while keeping the posix_acl_hash bytes intact so ksmbd_vfs_get_sd_xattr()'s hash check still passes. A subsequent SMB2 CREATE of a child under that parent drives smb2_open() into smb_inherit_dacl() (share has "vfs objects = acl_xattr" set), which fails the page allocator: WARNING: mm/page_alloc.c:5226 at __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x46c/0x9c0 Workqueue: ksmbd-io handle_ksmbd_work __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x46c/0x9c0 ___kmalloc_large_node+0x68/0x130 __kmalloc_large_node_noprof+0x24/0x70 __kmalloc_noprof+0x4c9/0x690 smb_inherit_dacl+0x394/0x2430 smb2_open+0x595d/0xabe0 handle_ksmbd_work+0x3d3/0x1140 With the patch applied the added guard rejects the tampered value with -EINVAL before any large allocation runs, smb2_open() falls back to smb2_create_sd_buffer(), and the child is created with a default SD. No warning, no splat. Fix by: 1. Validating num_aces against pdacl_size using the same formula applied in parse_dacl(). 2. Replacing the raw kmalloc(sizeof * num_aces * 2) with kmalloc_array(num_aces * 2, sizeof(...)) for overflow-safe allocation. 3. Tightening the per-ACE loop guard to require the minimum valid ACE size (offsetof(smb_ace, sid) + CIFS_SID_BASE_SIZE) and rejecting under-sized ACEs, matching the hardening in smb_check_perm_dacl() and parse_dacl(). v1 -> v2: - Replace the synthetic test-module splat in the changelog with a real-path UML + KASAN reproduction driven through mount.cifs and SMB2 CREATE; Namjae flagged the kcifs3_test_inherit_dacl_old name in v1 since it does not exist in ksmbd. - Drop the commit-hash citation from the code comment per Namjae's review; keep the parse_dacl() pointer.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable component 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

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker 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 has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

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.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a 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. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

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 Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a 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).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.15 To (excluding) 6.12.84

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.25

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.19 To (excluding) 7.0.2

References