CVE-2026-98134

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:

bpf: check_cond_jmp_op(): properly infer if register is null

Nicholas Carlini reported a bug when verifier can incorrectly infer that a pointer is non-null. The bug occurs when two pointers are compared and one of them has a type w/o PTR_MAYBE_NULL flag, but which allows a value to be NULL at runtime. Here is an example:

// a is PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RDONLY | PTR_UNTRUSTED // a is 0 at runtime. // b is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE | PTR_MAYBE_NULL void *a = bpf_rdonly_cast(0, 0); int *b = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...);

if (a == b) *b = 42; // verifier does not catch null pointer dereference

This happens because of a special case in check_cond_jmp_op(), which attempts to strip PTR_MAYBE_NULL flags from pointer types, when processing comparisons like rA == rB, if either rA or rB can't be null.

The non-null property is derived based on the absence of PTR_MAYBE_NULL flag on rA's or rB's type. But that is not sufficient for types like PTR_TO_MEM, as in the example.

This patch replaces type_may_be_null() call with reg_not_null(), which contains an allowlist of types for which absence of PTR_MAYBE_NULL actually means that the value can't be NULL at runtime.

At the moment, the list in the reg_not_null() omits two types for which PTR_MAYBE_NULL is applicable: PTR_TO_XDP_SOCK and PTR_TO_BUF. In order to remain backward compatible, and assuming that only comparison between pointers of the same type makes sense, this commit extends reg_not_null(). W/o such an extension e.g. verifier_jeq_infer_not_null/null_ptr_to_map_value fails.

reg_not_null() can be extended further, but I deem that out of scope for the fix at hand. Explicit base_type(...) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID checks in the check_cond_jmp_op() can be removed with migration to reg_not_null(), but that is a behavioural change, as the special case would start matching for PTR_TO_BTF_ID that is also is_trusted_reg(). I omit the behavioural change from this commit.

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
4th
KEV
Not listed

Published

September 25, 2026

Last Modified

September 30, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-98134(2)

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 rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (181 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (179 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.7-1: fixed in 7.2.7-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 15× in last 7d / 20× 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. 2026-10-04 23:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-10-03 14:47 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-10-03 14:47 UTCGHSA enrichment
  4. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCGHSA enrichment
  11. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-09-28 11:45 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-09-28 11:45 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-09-28 11:45 UTCGHSA enrichment
  16. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-09-25 11:30 UTCNVD update
  19. 2026-09-25 10:48 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-09-25 10:46 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-98134?
CVE-2026-98134 is a publicly disclosed vulnerability published on September 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: checkcondjmp_op(): properly infer if register is null Nicholas Carlini reported a bug when verifier can incorrectly infer that a pointer is non-null. The bug occurs when two pointers are compared and one of them has a type w/o…
When was CVE-2026-98134 disclosed?
CVE-2026-98134 was first published on September 25, 2026, with the most recent update on September 30, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-98134 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-98134 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (4th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-98134?
No fix for CVE-2026-98134 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-2026-98134 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-2026-98134

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-98134?

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