CVE-2026-43244
Linux Kernel 4.6 – 6.12.75
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-43244 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27807
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kcm: fix zero-frag skb in frag_list on partial sendmsg error Syzkaller reported a warning in kcm_write_msgs() when processing a message with a zero-fragment skb in the frag_list. When kcm_sendmsg() fills…
more
MAX_SKB_FRAGS fragments in the current skb, it allocates a new skb (tskb) and links it into the frag_list before copying data. If the copy subsequently fails (e.g. -EFAULT from user memory), tskb remains in the frag_list with zero fragments: head skb (msg being assembled, NOT yet in sk_write_queue) +-----------+ | frags[17] | (MAX_SKB_FRAGS, all filled with data) | frag_list-+--> tskb +-----------+ +----------+ | frags[0] | (empty! copy failed before filling) +----------+ For SOCK_SEQPACKET with partial data already copied, the error path saves this message via partial_message for later completion. For SOCK_SEQPACKET, sock_write_iter() automatically sets MSG_EOR, so a subsequent zero-length write(fd, NULL, 0) completes the message and queues it to sk_write_queue. kcm_write_msgs() then walks the frag_list and hits: WARN_ON(!skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags) TCP has a similar pattern where skbs are enqueued before data copy and cleaned up on failure via tcp_remove_empty_skb(). KCM was missing the equivalent cleanup. Fix this by tracking the predecessor skb (frag_prev) when allocating a new frag_list entry. On error, if the tail skb has zero frags, use frag_prev to unlink and free it in O(1) without walking the singly-linked frag_list. frag_prev is safe to dereference because the entire message chain is only held locally (or in kcm->seq_skb) and is not added to sk_write_queue until MSG_EOR, so the send path cannot free it underneath us. Also change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE to avoid flooding the log if the condition is somehow hit repeatedly. There are currently no KCM selftests in the kernel tree; a simple reproducer is available at [1]. [1] https://gist.github.com/mrpre/a94d431c757e8d6f168f4dd1a3749daa
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.