Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-45914 is a high-severity Use After Free (CWE-416) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Other Platforms; in the Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-32380
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Revert "hwmon: (ibmpex) fix use-after-free in high/low store" This reverts commit 6946c726c3f4c36f0f049e6f97e88c510b15f65d. Jean Delvare points out that the patch does not completely fix the reported problem, that it in fact…
more
introduces a (new) race condition, and that it may actually not be needed in the first place. Various AI reviews agree. Specific and relevant AI feedback: " This reordering sets the driver data to NULL before removing the sensor attributes in the loop below. ibmpex_show_sensor() retrieves this driver data via dev_get_drvdata() but does not check if it is NULL before dereferencing it to access data->sensors[]. If a userspace process reads a sensor file (like temp1_input) while this delete function is running, could it race with the dev_set_drvdata(..., NULL) call here and crash in ibmpex_show_sensor()? Would it be safer to keep the original order where device_remove_file() is called before clearing the driver data? device_remove_file() should wait for any active sysfs callbacks to complete, which might already prevent the use-after-free this patch intends to fix. " Revert the offending patch. If it can be shown that the originally reported alleged race condition does indeed exist, it can always be re-introduced with a complete fix.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Other Platforms
- Risk Domain
- Other ATLAS/OWASP Terms
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: ai
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 3 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.4.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover use-after-free bugs through dynamic analysis or fuzzing.
Engineering principles can require memory-safe constructs or languages that structurally avoid introducing use-after-free.
Process isolation confines the blast radius of use-after-free memory corruption to a single execution domain.
Memory protection controls limit exploitation impact by blocking unauthorized code execution from dangling pointers.
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 incorporate memory-safety tooling and reviews that prevent most use-after-free defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released 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 use-after-free bugs before release.
Secure SDLC mandates memory-safety practices that reduce use-after-free defects.
Application security requirements can specify memory-management rules that mitigate use-after-free.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety design choices that limit use-after-free exposure.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe avoidance of use-after-free patterns.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248592 OL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230279 RHEL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257794 RHEL 9 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416