CVE-2026-31618
Linux Kernel 2.6.12.1 – 6.6.136
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-31618 is a medium-severity Divide By Zero (CWE-369) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25511
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fbdev: tdfxfb: avoid divide-by-zero on FBIOPUT_VSCREENINFO Much like commit 19f953e74356 ("fbdev: fb_pm2fb: Avoid potential divide by zero error"), we also need to prevent that same crash from happening in the…
more
udlfb driver as it uses pixclock directly when dividing, which will crash.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Kernel divide-by-zero flaw in framebuffer driver (CWE-369) directly enables local system crash via ioctl, matching Application or System Exploitation for DoS.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of untrusted ioctl parameters (pixclock) before arithmetic, preventing the divide-by-zero in tdfxfb FBIOPUT_VSCREENINFO handling.
Restricts which processes may open and issue ioctls against framebuffer devices, reducing the attack surface for triggering the kernel flaw.
Mandates timely application of the kernel patch that adds the pixclock != 0 guard, eliminating the CWE-369 condition in tdfxfb.
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 include code analysis, input validation, and testing that prevent divide-by-zero errors.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover divide-by-zero flaws via static analysis or testing.
Routine patching and replacement can remediate divide-by-zero bugs present in deployed software.
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 divide-by-zero conditions before release.
Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and error-handling practices that can prevent divide-by-zero faults.
Application security requirements can mandate checks for zero denominators and safe arithmetic handling.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive coding patterns that avoid arithmetic exceptions.
Secure coding standards directly require validation to prevent divide-by-zero and similar runtime faults.