CVE-2026-22998:詳細資料

CVE-2026-22998

7.5
/
高危
0.05%V4
2026-01-25
14h36 +00:00
Memory Corruption
Network
2026-10-19
18h25 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
掌握特定 CVE 的任何變更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

nvme-tcp: fix NULL pointer dereferences in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvme-tcp: fix NULL pointer dereferences in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec Commit efa56305908b ("nvmet-tcp: Fix a kernel panic when host sends an invalid H2C PDU length") added ttag bounds checking and data_offset validation in nvmet_tcp_handle_h2c_data_pdu(), but it did not validate whether the command's data structures (cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov) have been properly initialized before processing H2C_DATA PDUs. The nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec() function dereferences these pointers without NULL checks. This can be triggered by sending H2C_DATA PDU immediately after the ICREQ/ICRESP handshake, before sending a CONNECT command or NVMe write command. Attack vectors that trigger NULL pointer dereferences: 1. H2C_DATA PDU sent before CONNECT → both pointers NULL 2. H2C_DATA PDU for READ command → cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL 3. H2C_DATA PDU for uninitialized command slot → both pointers NULL The fix validates both cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov before calling nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec(). Both checks are required because: - Uninitialized commands: both NULL - READ commands: cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL - WRITE commands: both allocated

CVE 資訊

相關弱點

CWE-ID 弱點名稱 來源
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

指標

指標 評分 嚴重程度 CVSS 向量 來源
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

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

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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.

EPSS

EPSS 是一種預測漏洞被利用可能性的評分模型。

EPSS 評分

EPSS 模型產生介於 0 到 1(0% 到 100%)之間的概率分數。分數越高,漏洞被利用的概率越大。

EPSS 百分位數

百分位數用於根據 EPSS 分數對 CVE 進行排名。例如,EPSS 評分在第 95 百分位的 CVE 比 95% 的其他 CVE 更有可能被利用。因此,百分位數用於比較某 CVE 的 EPSS 分數與其他 CVE 的相對位置。

相關產品

設定 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.4.268 至(不含) 5.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.10.209 至(不含) 5.10.249

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.15.148 至(不含) 5.15.199

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.1.75 至(不含) 6.1.162

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.6.14 至(不含) 6.6.122

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.7.2 至(不含) 6.12.67

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.13 至(不含) 6.18.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19

參考資料