CVE-2026-98260

HIGHPre-NVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-06. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread()

A per-thread CPU timer holds a reference to the PID of the thread it is attached to and, while it is armed, its node is queued in that thread's posix_cputimers. The task is looked up by that PID.

When a non-leader thread exec()s, de_thread() changes which task owns that PID. pid_task(timer->it.cpu.pid, PIDTYPE_PID) then returns NULL, but the node is still queued on tsk, which is alive. timer_lock_sighand() takes a failed lookup to mean that the node is already dequeued, so it has nothing to undo.

begin_new_exec() calls posix_cpu_timers_exit(me) right after exec_task_namespaces() and that removes the leftover node, so the state normally stays invisible. But bprm->point_of_no_return is set before de_thread(), so if unshare_files(), set_mm_exe_file(), exec_mmap() or exec_task_namespaces() fails, the task dies before it gets there. exit_itimers() then frees the k_itimer while its node is still queued, and reaping tsk later erases that freed node from the rbtree.

In short:

the non-leader thread B the parent

timer_create(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID) timer_settime() arm_timer() // the node is queued on B execve() de_thread(B) exchange_tids(B, leader) // B's PID now belongs to the leader release_task(leader) __exit_signal(leader) posix_cpu_timers_exit(leader) // cleans leader's queue, not B's __unhash_process(leader) // that PID has no task anymore exec_mmap() mmap_read_lock_killable(old_mm) kill(B, SIGKILL) // -EINTR get_signal() do_exit() exit_itimers() posix_timer_delete() posix_cpu_timer_del() posix_timer_unhash_and_free() // freed while still queued wait4() release_task(B) posix_cpu_timers_exit(B) cleanup_timerqueue() timerqueue_del() // use-after-free

Move the POSIX timer cleanup right after de_thread() before any of the later failure conditions brings the task into do_exit().

[ tglx: Move the cleanup right after de_thread() ]

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

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 (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity78% × 45%
The EG Score, 7.8 of 10.
Exploitation0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.1%
EPSS %ILE
2nd
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 6, 2026

Last Modified

October 7, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Oct 7, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/acb03d3881818581052924a9bbbe92b8741ed448
Web page

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d602877baf36c43c788a5f472c977e0be414029f
Web page

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/75aa08b93c65766040f9ca99f41ac85ad22596b6
Web page

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d9ae467e617ca29b825493a362bf0d75ad5f4ac3
Web page

exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6f1977cea3e85cd8ab55fb337d3e1725fe61d1ce

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-98260(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
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (360 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (183 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 (181 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.8-1: fixed in 7.2.8-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 38× in last 7d / 49× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 03:57 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-13 03:57 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-13 03:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  5. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  6. 2026-10-12 14:38 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-12 04:18 UTCVendor advisory
  8. 2026-10-12 04:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  9. 2026-10-11 19:10 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 16:35 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-10-11 16:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  12. 2026-10-11 16:25 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-11 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  14. 2026-10-11 13:37 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-11 04:54 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-11 04:54 UTCVendor advisory
  17. 2026-10-11 04:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  18. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  19. 2026-10-10 17:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  20. 2026-10-10 05:34 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-10 05:34 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-10 05:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  23. 2026-10-09 20:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  24. 2026-10-09 17:52 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-09 17:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
Show 24 more
  1. 2026-10-09 06:12 UTCVendor advisory
  2. 2026-10-09 06:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  3. 2026-10-08 18:31 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-08 18:31 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-08 18:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  6. 2026-10-08 17:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  7. 2026-10-08 06:49 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-08 06:49 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-08 06:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  10. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 19:09 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-07 19:09 UTCVendor advisory
  13. 2026-10-07 19:09 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  14. 2026-10-07 07:29 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-07 07:29 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-07 07:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99
  17. 2026-10-07 06:57 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.8 HIGH
  18. 2026-10-07 06:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99
  19. 2026-10-07 06:56 UTCMITRE cvelistV5CVSS v3 → 7.8 · severity → HIGH
  20. 2026-10-06 15:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  21. 2026-10-06 09:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pr95-77xq-3v99
  22. 2026-10-06 09:28 UTCNVD update
  23. 2026-10-06 08:55 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-06 08:52 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-98260?
CVE-2026-98260 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 6, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() A per-thread CPU timer holds a reference to the PID of the thread it is attached to and, while it is armed, its node is queued in that thread's posix_cputimers. The task is looked…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-98260 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-98260 was published on October 6, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 7, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-98260 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-98260 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (2nd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-98260?
CVE-2026-98260 has a CVSS base score of 7.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-98260?
A fix for CVE-2026-98260 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-98260 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-2026-98260

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-98260?

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