Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-27814

Race Condition in Linuxfoundation Everest ≤ 2026.02.0

Published
26 March 2026
Modified
31 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 4.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0013 3th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-27814 is a medium-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Everest. Its CVSS base score is 4.2 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

EVerest is an EV charging software stack. Versions prior to 2026.02.0 have a data race (C++ UB) triggered by an A 1-phase ↔ 3-phase switch request (`ac_switch_three_phases_while_charging`) during charging/waiting executes concurrently with the state machine loop. Version 2026.02.0 contains a…

more

patch.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

Insufficient information to map techniques.
Confidence: LOW · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-33009Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-26070Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-26072Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-26074Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-26071Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-27813Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-23995Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2025-68139Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2026-22593Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest
CVE-2025-68132Same product: Linuxfoundation Everest

Affected Assets

linuxfoundation
everest
≤ 2026.02.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation
  • SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SI-7 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V10.4.2
  • V10.4.5
  • V15.1.3
  • V15.4.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Developer testing and evaluation (including concurrency and thread-safety testing) would have detected the data race between ac_switch_three_phases_while_charging and the state-machine loop before release.

prevent

Requiring secure development processes and tools (static analysis, thread sanitizers, formal methods for shared-state) directly prevents introduction of C++ data races such as the one described.

detect

Software integrity verification can detect anomalous behavior or crashes resulting from the undefined behavior triggered by the race condition during charging.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require proper synchronization primitives and concurrency testing that prevent race conditions.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

detects

Security testing can detect race conditions, but does not prevent them at design or coding time.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.

prevents

Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.

none

Change management reduces introduction of concurrency bugs during updates, yet does not address the weakness itself.

References