CVE-2026-64142

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.89.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2026-07-19. A secondary CVSS source baseline 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
9.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.7%CVSS: 9.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups

ksmbd_durable_scavenger() has two related races against any walker that iterates f_ci->m_fp_list, including ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() (used by ksmbd_vfs_rename) and the share-mode checks in fs/smb/server/smb_common.c.

(1) fp->node list-head reuse. Durable-preserved handles can remain linked on f_ci->m_fp_list after session teardown so share-mode checks still see them while the handle is reconnectable. The scavenger collected expired handles by adding fp->node to a local scavenger_list after removing them from the global durable idr. Because fp->node is the same list_head used by m_fp_list, list_add(&fp->node, &scavenger_list) overwrites the m_fp_list links and corrupts both lists. CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST can report this on the share-mode walk path.

(2) Refcount race against m_fp_list walkers. The scavenger qualifies an expired durable handle with atomic_read(&fp->refcount) > 1 and fp->conn under global_ft.lock, removes fp from global_ft, then drops global_ft.lock before unlinking fp from m_fp_list and freeing it. During that gap fp is still linked on m_fp_list with f_state == FP_INITED. ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() under m_lock read calls ksmbd_fp_get() (atomic_inc_not_zero on refcount that is still 1) and takes a live reference; the scavenger then unlinks and frees fp while the holder owns a reference, leading to UAF on the holder's subsequent ksmbd_fd_put() and on any field reads performed by a concurrent share-mode walker that iterates m_fp_list without taking ksmbd_fp_get() (smb_check_perm_dleases-like paths).

Fix both:

* Stop reusing fp->node as a scavenger-private list node. Remove one expired handle from global_ft under global_ft.lock, take an explicit transient reference, drop the lock, unlink fp->node from m_fp_list under f_ci->m_lock, then drop both the durable lifetime and transient references with atomic_sub_and_test(2, &fp->refcount). If the scavenger is the last putter the close runs there; otherwise an in-flight holder that already raced through the m_fp_list lookup owns the final close via its ksmbd_fd_put() path. The one-at-a-time disposal can rescan the durable idr when multiple handles expire in the same pass, but durable scavenging is a background expiration path and the final full scan recomputes min_timeout before the next wait.

* Clear fp->persistent_id inside __ksmbd_remove_durable_fd() right after idr_remove(), so a delayed final close from a holder that snatched fp does not re-issue idr_remove() on a persistent id that idr_alloc_cyclic() in ksmbd_open_durable_fd() may have already handed out to a brand-new durable handle.

* Bypass the per-conn open_files_count decrement in __put_fd_final() when fp is detached from any session table (fp->conn cleared by session_fd_check() at durable preserve -- paired with the volatile_id clear at unpublish, so checking fp->conn alone is sufficient). The walker that owns the final close runs from an unrelated work->conn whose stats.open_files_count never tracked this durable fp; without this guard the holder would underflow that unrelated counter.

The two races are folded into one patch because patch (1) alone cleans up the corrupted list but leaves a deterministic UAF window for m_fp_list walkers that the transient-reference and persistent_id discipline in (2) close; bisecting onto an intermediate state would land on a UAF that pre-patch chaos merely made less reproducible.

Validation: * CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST coverage for the list_head reuse path. * KASAN-enabled direct SMB2 durable-handle coverage that exercised ksmbd_durable_scavenger() and non-NULL ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() returns while durable handles expired under concurrent rename lookups, with no KASAN, UAF, list-corruption, ODEBUG, or WARNING reports. ---truncated---

CVSS v3
9.8
EG Score
9.8CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
44
EG Risk 44/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity98% × 45%
The EG Score, 9.8 of 10.
Exploitation0.7% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.7%
EPSS %ILE
52nd
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 19, 2026

Last Modified

August 17, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Oct 13, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bf736184d063da1a552ffeff0481813599a182cc
Web page

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/95f072ef934ca00711d510676b8792cbf59a5aae
Web page

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5da69a65b282d2276de22e5194ba0f88c836170c
Web page

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3a436932eb397e909d0607d76a8325abd9d85a35
Web page

ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1f8f3246d55f89350a1a67bdf3744b7241048e4e

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-64142(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(8)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.38-1 ... 6.12.94-1~bpo12+1 (27 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.94-1: fixed in 6.12.94-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.0.9-1~bpo13+1 (142 versions)
  • every version up to 7.0.12-1: fixed in 7.0.12-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(8)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 18× in last 7d / 73× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 615 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 515 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-14 09:02 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-14 09:02 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  3. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  4. 2026-10-13 05:44 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-13 05:44 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-13 05:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  7. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  8. 2026-10-12 15:48 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-12 06:09 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-12 06:09 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  11. 2026-10-11 19:32 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 16:48 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-11 14:09 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  15. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  16. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  17. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  18. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  19. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  20. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  21. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  22. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  23. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  24. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  25. 2026-10-01 16:11 UTCVendor advisory
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-01 16:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  2. 2026-10-01 12:32 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-10-01 12:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  4. 2026-10-01 08:08 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-01 08:08 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-01 08:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  7. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  8. 2026-09-28 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  9. 2026-09-28 10:26 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-09-28 10:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  11. 2026-09-28 06:35 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-09-28 06:35 UTCVendor advisory
  13. 2026-09-28 06:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  14. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 51st percentile
  15. 2026-09-24 13:11 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-09-24 13:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  17. 2026-09-24 08:22 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-09-24 08:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  19. 2026-09-24 03:34 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-09-24 03:34 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-09-24 03:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  22. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  23. 2026-09-23 09:12 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-09-23 09:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  25. 2026-09-23 05:31 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-09-23 05:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  27. 2026-09-23 01:50 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-09-23 01:50 UTCVendor advisory
  29. 2026-09-23 01:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  30. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  31. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  32. 2026-09-18 11:26 UTCVendor advisory
  33. 2026-09-18 11:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  34. 2026-09-18 07:47 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-09-18 07:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  36. 2026-09-18 04:08 UTCEG score recompute
  37. 2026-09-18 04:08 UTCVendor advisory
  38. 2026-09-18 04:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  39. 2026-09-17 09:56 UTCVendor advisory
  40. 2026-09-17 09:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  41. 2026-09-17 05:16 UTCEG score recompute
  42. 2026-09-17 05:16 UTCVendor advisory
  43. 2026-09-17 05:16 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  44. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  45. 2026-09-16 12:53 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-09-16 12:53 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-09-16 12:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  48. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  49. 2026-09-14 10:20 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-09-14 10:20 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  51. 2026-09-14 06:32 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-09-14 06:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  53. 2026-09-14 02:52 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-09-14 02:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  55. 2026-09-13 22:53 UTCEG score recompute
  56. 2026-09-13 22:53 UTCVendor advisory
  57. 2026-09-13 22:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  58. 2026-09-13 16:06 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-09-13 16:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  60. 2026-09-13 11:42 UTCVendor advisory
  61. 2026-09-13 11:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  62. 2026-09-13 07:03 UTCVendor advisory
  63. 2026-09-13 07:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  64. 2026-09-13 03:23 UTCVendor advisory
  65. 2026-09-13 03:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  66. 2026-09-12 19:31 UTCEG score recompute
  67. 2026-09-12 19:31 UTCVendor advisory
  68. 2026-09-12 19:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  69. 2026-09-12 13:44 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-09-12 13:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  71. 2026-09-12 10:04 UTCVendor advisory
  72. 2026-09-12 10:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  73. 2026-09-12 05:54 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-09-12 05:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcg5-p7gf-vq99 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  75. 2026-09-12 01:06 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-64142?
CVE-2026-64142 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 19, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against mfplist lookups ksmbddurablescavenger() has two related races against any walker that iterates fci->mfplist, including ksmbdlookupfdinode() (used by ksmbdvfsrename) and the share-mode…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-64142 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-64142 was published on July 19, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 17, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-64142 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-64142 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.7% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (52nd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-64142?
CVE-2026-64142 has a CVSS base score of 9.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-64142?
A fix for CVE-2026-64142 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-64142 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-64142

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-64142?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.