Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-31491 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 2th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-24861
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: RDMA/irdma: Harden depth calculation functions An issue was exposed where OS can pass in U32_MAX for SQ/RQ/SRQ size. This can cause integer overflow and truncation of SQ/RQ/SRQ depth returning a…
more
success when it should have failed. Harden the functions to do all depth calculations and boundary checking in u64 sizes.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Integer overflow (CWE-190) in kernel RDMA driver depth checks allows invalid queue sizes to succeed, directly enabling local exploitation for privilege escalation via memory corruption or bypass of security boundaries.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of untrusted size parameters (SQ/RQ/SRQ depth) before arithmetic to block U32_MAX values that trigger CWE-190 overflow.
Requires developer testing and static/dynamic analysis that would detect integer-overflow paths in depth-calculation routines during RDMA driver development.
Mandates secure development standards and tools (safe integer types, bounds-checked arithmetic) that prevent truncation bugs when hardening irdma depth functions.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.