Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-45964

Linux Kernel 5.2 – 5.10.252

Published
27 May 2026
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0016 6th percentile
Risk Priority 41 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-45964 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 6th 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

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: SUNRPC: fix gss_auth kref leak in gss_alloc_msg error path Commit 5940d1cf9f42 ("SUNRPC: Rebalance a kref in auth_gss.c") added a kref_get(&gss_auth->kref) call to balance the gss_put_auth() done in gss_release_msg(), but forgot…

more

to add a corresponding kref_put() on the error path when kstrdup_const() fails. If service_name is non-NULL and kstrdup_const() fails, the function jumps to err_put_pipe_version which calls put_pipe_version() and kfree(gss_msg), but never releases the gss_auth reference. This leads to a kref leak where the gss_auth structure is never freed. Add a forward declaration for gss_free_callback() and call kref_put() in the err_put_pipe_version error path to properly release the reference taken earlier.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-39948Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-45941Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-44971Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-46207Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-53113Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-38563Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-56572Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-50254Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2023-52936Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2026-23414Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
5.2 — 5.10.252 · 5.11 — 5.15.202 · 5.16 — 6.1.165

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing in development can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.

finds

Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.

References