CVE-2026-90042

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.89.8—
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2026-09-16. A secondary CVSS source baseline 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, secondary
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
9.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.7%CVSS: 9.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

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

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

ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers

The fscrypt subsystem uses the scatterlist crypto API, inheriting its requirement that any buffers are in the linear mapping region. However, the messenger client uses kvmalloc() to create buffers for messages, which will occasionally place those buffers in the vmalloc() region when physical memory fragmentation doesn't permit a large enough kmalloc(). The various callers of ceph_fname_to_usr() directly pass (slices of) raw messages from the MDS without considering that the messages may be in vmalloc() buffers, resulting in oopses especially on non-x86 platforms (see 'Closes:' for more details and a reproducer).

Make ceph_fname_to_usr() explicitly tolerant of vmalloc()-allocated fname->ctext, fname->name, and/or oname->name buffers, using tname (which, when non-null, must be a linear address; when null, is briefly allocated as necessary) as a bounce buffer to avoid passing any inappropriate addresses to fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr().

Additionally change parse_reply_info_readdir() -- the only function to supply its own tname -- to follow the new "tname must never come from vmalloc()" rule by passing NULL when the message is not in the linear region. Though this causes a per-dentry kmalloc()+kfree(), this overhead exists only when processing the minority of messages that spill into vmalloc(). My (crude) testing puts this at only about 1 in 8,000 readdir messages. Still, if the overhead proves unreasonable in the future, it is easy enough to mitigate: a future change could allocate a bounce buffer in parse_reply_info_readdir() and use that as tname instead.

CVSS v3
9.8
EG Score
9.8CRITICALhigh confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100CISA SSVC

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
Severity98% × 45%
Exploitation1% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
CISA SSVC: Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* or Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Action: No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
EPSS PROB
0.7%
EPSS %ILE
50th
KEV
Not listed

CISA SSVCTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* or Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.

Exploitation none (no KEV listing, exploit record or EPSS ≥ 50%) · Automatable unknown (not published for this CVE) · Technical impact total (CVSS ≥ 9.0). Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it: high means the affected system is essential to your organisation's mission, or its compromise could cause irreversible harm to people. CISA's decision table

Published

September 16, 2026

Last Modified

September 21, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Sep 28, 2026
No patch confirmed yet.
generic

ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e939fc6a7bd969a58a150b7f188c1047138403e3
generic

ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/93729594af506557a86f8b603be7ac5f3370eeca
generic

ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3b467c68803d7c7e82678289e598afd44faa6101
generic

ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/110747ff535e3d98ac17d68dbd056bb6ef000e23

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-90042(2)

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

Affected Packages

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux-6.126.12.100-1~deb12u1, 6.12.101-1~deb12u1, 6.12.107-1~deb12u1
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.111-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (35 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1: fixed in 6.12.111-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (179 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.6-1: fixed in 7.2.6-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 99× in last 7d / 276× 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.

Showing the most recent 100 of 276 total refreshes for this CVE.

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

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-90042?
CVE-2026-90042 is a critical vulnerability published on September 16, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers The fscrypt subsystem uses the scatterlist crypto API, inheriting its requirement that any buffers are in the linear mapping region. However, the messenger client uses…
When was CVE-2026-90042 disclosed?
CVE-2026-90042 was first published on September 16, 2026, with the most recent update on September 21, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-90042 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-90042 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.7% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (50th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-90042?
CVE-2026-90042 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-2026-90042?
No fix for CVE-2026-90042 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-90042 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-2026-90042

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-90042?

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