CVE-2026-93048

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scoredTrending — 4 sources updated this week
—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS v2: —Exploit: 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:

mtd: part: reject MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN in mtd_add_partition()

mtd_add_partition() does not reject the special offset value MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3), which leads to a WARN_ON in add_mtd_device() when called through the BLKPG ioctl on NAND devices. The RETAIN value depends on cur_offset being the end of the previous partition, but in the dynamic partition path cur_offset equals the offset argument itself, causing undefined behavior.

Commit 5daa7b21496a ("mtd: prepare partition add and del functions for ioctl requests") introduced mtd_add_partition() and correctly rejected MTDPART_OFS_APPEND (-1) and MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK (-2), since those special offsets rely on cur_offset tracking the previous partition's end. However, commit 1a31368bf92e ("mtd: add a flags for partitions which should just leave smth. after them") later added MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3) for the static partition table path without updating mtd_add_partition() to also reject this value.

With offset=-3 passed via BLKPG, the RETAIN size calculation in allocate_partition() underflows (parent_size - 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFD = parent_size + 3). If the underflow result does not appear to leave enough space, allocate_partition() jumps to out_register via goto, skipping erasesize initialization. This results in erasesize=0, which triggers:

WARN_ON((!mtd->erasesize || !master->_erase) && !(mtd->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE))

in add_mtd_device(). If the underflow result appears to leave enough space, a bogus partition size is calculated, but the "out of reach" sanity check catches the invalid offset and creates a disabled empty partition (offset=0, size=0) instead of returning an error.

Fix this by adding MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN to the rejection list in mtd_add_partition(), consistent with the existing handling of APPEND and NXTBLK.

CVSS v3
—
EchelonGraph score
Not yet assessedNo source has published severity data for this CVE yet — no CVSS score from NVD or a CNA, no GitHub advisory, and it is not in CISA KEV. This is not a rating of zero; we cannot assess it yet.
EG Score
—
EG Risk
—
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
10th
KEV
Not listed

Published

September 17, 2026

Last Modified

September 17, 2026

References (8)

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-93048(2)

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

Affected Packages

(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (360 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
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 12× in last 7d / 30× 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. 2026-10-05 08:12 UTCVendor advisory
  2. 2026-10-05 08:12 UTCGHSA enrichment
  3. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-10-02 09:47 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-02 09:47 UTCGHSA enrichment
  6. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-09-29 11:24 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-29 11:24 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-09-29 11:24 UTCGHSA enrichment
  11. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-09-26 12:55 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-09-26 12:55 UTCGHSA enrichment
  17. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-09-23 14:31 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-09-23 14:31 UTCGHSA enrichment
  21. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-09-20 16:07 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-20 16:07 UTCVendor advisory
Show 5 more
  1. 2026-09-20 16:07 UTCGHSA enrichment
  2. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-09-17 17:24 UTCNVD update
  4. 2026-09-17 16:22 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-09-17 16:19 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-93048?
CVE-2026-93048 is a publicly disclosed vulnerability published on September 17, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mtd: part: reject MTDPARTOFSRETAIN in mtdaddpartition() mtdaddpartition() does not reject the special offset value MTDPARTOFSRETAIN (-3), which leads to a WARN_ON in addmtddevice() when called through the BLKPG ioctl on NAND…
When was CVE-2026-93048 disclosed?
CVE-2026-93048 was first published on September 17, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-93048 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-93048 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (10th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-93048?
No fix for CVE-2026-93048 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-2026-93048 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-2026-93048

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-93048?

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

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs