CVE-2026-64283

HIGHNVD 7.07.0
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.0 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-25. NVD baseline CVSS 7.0; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
Trending — 3 sources updated this week
7.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0%CVSS: 7.0Exploit: None knownExposed: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

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

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values

When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file. Passing unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be tracked, as unsigned values.

On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size (and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values. Taking the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.

Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but operating on their sum is not.

For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but that's not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.

Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value, i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the number of pages in a single memslot to the largest positive signed 32-bit value:

if (id < KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS && (mem->memory_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES) return -EINVAL;

and so that maximum "size" will ever be is 0x7fffffff000.

The sum of the two is, however, problematic. While the size is restricted by KVM's memslot logic, the offset is not, i.e. the offset is completely unchecked until the "offset + size > i_size_read(inode)" check. If the offset is the (nearly) largest possible _positive_ value, then adding size to the offset can result in a signed, negative 64-bit value. When compared against the size of the file (guaranteed to be positive), the negative sum is always smaller, and KVM incorrectly allows the absurd offset.

Opportunistically add missing includes in kvm_mm.h (instead of relying on its parents).

CVSS v3
7.0
EG Score
7.0(medium)
EG Risk
36(Track)
EG Risk 36/100SSVC: Track

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
Severity70% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS PROB
0%
EPSS %ILE
4%
KEV
Not listed

Published

July 25, 2026

Last Modified

August 17, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Aug 13, 2026
No patch confirmed yet.
generic

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f3a98d5881b9bd4807f49156143565f6aabcef1e
generic

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/eba85fee7fc6cf28fec38a5bf3c378bef9a79ca6

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-64283(1)

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

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFixed inDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc5-1~exp1 (162 versions)
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFixed inDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.1~rc7-1~exp1 (156 versions)7.1.4-1

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 21× in last 7d / 79× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-08-30 01:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-08-30 00:12 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-08-30 00:11 UTCGHSA enrichment
  4. 2026-08-28 21:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-08-27 21:06 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-08-27 21:06 UTCGHSA enrichment
  7. 2026-08-27 09:58 UTCGHSA enrichment
  8. 2026-08-26 19:51 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-08-26 19:50 UTCGHSA enrichment
  10. 2026-08-26 14:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-08-26 06:52 UTCGHSA enrichment
  12. 2026-08-25 19:41 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-08-25 19:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  14. 2026-08-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-08-25 08:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  16. 2026-08-24 21:41 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-08-24 21:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  18. 2026-08-24 10:25 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-08-24 10:25 UTCGHSA enrichment
  20. 2026-08-23 23:24 UTCGHSA enrichment
  21. 2026-08-23 12:24 UTCGHSA enrichment
  22. 2026-08-23 01:23 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-08-23 01:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
  24. 2026-08-23 00:19 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-08-22 14:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
Show 72 more
  1. 2026-08-22 03:21 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-08-22 03:21 UTCGHSA enrichment
  3. 2026-08-21 23:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-08-21 16:19 UTCGHSA enrichment
  5. 2026-08-21 05:17 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-08-21 05:17 UTCGHSA enrichment
  7. 2026-08-20 22:55 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-08-20 18:16 UTCGHSA enrichment
  9. 2026-08-20 07:16 UTCGHSA enrichment
  10. 2026-08-19 20:16 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-08-19 20:16 UTCGHSA enrichment
  12. 2026-08-19 17:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-08-19 05:51 UTCGHSA enrichment
  14. 2026-08-18 18:51 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-08-18 18:51 UTCGHSA enrichment
  16. 2026-08-18 13:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-08-18 03:39 UTCGHSA enrichment
  18. 2026-08-17 16:36 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-08-17 16:36 UTCGHSA enrichment
  20. 2026-08-17 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-08-17 05:21 UTCGHSA enrichment
  22. 2026-08-16 20:45 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-08-16 20:45 UTCGHSA enrichment
  24. 2026-08-16 14:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-08-16 09:44 UTCEG score recompute
  26. 2026-08-16 09:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  27. 2026-08-15 22:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  28. 2026-08-15 11:44 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-08-15 11:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  30. 2026-08-15 01:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-08-15 00:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  32. 2026-08-14 13:44 UTCGHSA enrichment
  33. 2026-08-14 02:43 UTCEG score recompute
  34. 2026-08-14 02:43 UTCGHSA enrichment
  35. 2026-08-13 22:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-08-13 15:43 UTCEG score recompute 7.00
  37. 2026-08-13 15:43 UTCGHSA enrichment
  38. 2026-08-13 15:43 UTCNVD updateCVSS v3 → 7 · severity → HIGH
  39. 2026-08-12 13:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-08-11 06:47 UTCGHSA enrichment
  41. 2026-08-11 00:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-08-09 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-08-08 16:37 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-08-08 08:55 UTCGHSA enrichment
  45. 2026-08-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-08-05 19:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-08-05 19:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-08-05 11:02 UTCGHSA enrichment
  49. 2026-08-04 15:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-08-04 10:39 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-08-03 10:36 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-08-02 13:07 UTCGHSA enrichment
  53. 2026-08-02 02:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-08-01 04:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-07-30 16:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-07-30 15:15 UTCEG score recompute
  57. 2026-07-30 15:15 UTCGHSA enrichment
  58. 2026-07-30 01:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-07-30 01:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-07-29 00:45 UTCEG score recompute
  61. 2026-07-29 00:45 UTCGHSA enrichment
  62. 2026-07-28 15:37 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-07-27 14:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-07-26 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-07-26 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  66. 2026-07-26 02:53 UTCEG score recompute
  67. 2026-07-26 02:53 UTCGHSA enrichment
  68. 2026-07-25 14:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-07-25 14:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-07-25 10:39 UTCNVD update
  71. 2026-07-25 09:40 UTCEG score recompute
  72. 2026-07-25 09:21 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-64283?
CVE-2026-64283 is a high vulnerability published on July 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative…
When was CVE-2026-64283 disclosed?
CVE-2026-64283 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on July 25, 2026, with the most recent update on August 17, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-64283 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-64283 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the top 96.5% of all scored CVEs.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-64283?
CVE-2026-64283 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.0 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-64283?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-64283, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-64283

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-64283?

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