The Lean 4 kernel does not verify that the structure named in a projection expression matches the type of the value being projected, and environment::add_inductive in src/kernel/inductive.cpp did not type check the nested inductive applications that are replaced by auxiliary types, so their parametric arguments escaped checking. A metaprogram running in the Lean process can register an ill-typed nested inductive whose constructor applies a .proj C 0 projection to a value of the unrelated type W, and the kernel admits the declaration through the ordinary checked addDecl path at maximum kernel checking, without sorry, unsafeCast, debug.skipKernelTC, addDeclWithoutChecking, FFI, or a modified .olean file. The result is a type confusion yielding a proof of False that carries no axioms, from which any proposition can be derived. The published proof of concept additionally pads two expressions until their hashes and approximate depths collide, which defeats kernel caching; that is the technique used to reach the flaw, not its cause. Exploitation requires running a metaprogram in-process, for example by building a project or importing a malicious Lake dependency.
CVE-2026-72844
This medium-severity CVE scores 6.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). GitHub Security Advisory data not yet ingested — confidence will rise once GHSA publishes (typical lag: hours to days for open-source ecosystem CVEs; never for infrastructure-only CVEs).
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.
- CVSS v3
- 6.3
- EG Score
- 6.3(low)
- EG Risk
- 33(Track)EG Risk 33/100SSVC: 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 computedSeverity63% × 45%Exploitation0% × 40%Automatability30% × 15%Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence. - EPSS PROB
- —
- EPSS %ILE
- —
- KEV
- Not listed
Published
August 20, 2026
Last Modified
August 20, 2026
Advisory Details (8)
Auto-updated Aug 20, 2026Lean 4 Kernel Type Checking Bypass via Mismatched Structure Projections | Advisories | VulnCheck
https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/lean-4-kernel-type-checking-bypass-via-mismatched-structure-projectionsGitHub - leanprover/lean4: Lean 4 programming language and theorem prover · GitHub
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4oss-security - Lean 4 kernel soundness bug: forging proofs via nested inductive projections (0 = 1 demonstrated)
https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/08/02/1GitHub - xrchz/CollatzLean: Collatz conjecture in Lean · GitHub
https://github.com/xrchz/CollatzLeanGitHub - endrazine/lean-cve-poc: Example of proving "0 = 1" using a vulnerability in the Lean 4 kernel. · GitHub
https://github.com/endrazine/lean-cve-pocfix: missing check at kernel inductive declaration
Fix merged in leanprover/lean4 PR #14577 on 2026-07-28 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/14577commit a39eab69e1ee (leanprover/lean4)
Fix landed in leanprover/lean4 commit a39eab69e1ee — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/commit/a39eab69e1eee9ad38f4efe507907b1026a77808Kernel accepts wrong-structure projections, allowing an axiom-free proof of False · Issue #14576 · leanprover/lean4 · GitHub
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/14576Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-72844(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× 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.
- 2026-08-20 18:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-08-20 17:32 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-08-20 17:31 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Frequently asked(4)
What is CVE-2026-72844?
When was CVE-2026-72844 disclosed?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-72844?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-72844?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-72844
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-72844?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.