CVE-2026-46207
Linux Kernel 6.7 – 6.12.90
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-46207 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 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 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-2026-32834
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock/virtio: fix empty payload in tap skb for non-linear buffers For non-linear skbs, virtio_transport_build_skb() goes through virtio_transport_copy_nonlinear_skb() to copy the original payload in the new skb to be delivered to…
more
the vsockmon tap device. This manually initializes an iov_iter but does not set iov_iter.count. Since the iov_iter is zero-initialized, the copy length is zero and no payload is actually copied to the monitor interface, leaving data un-initialized. Fix this by removing the linear vs non-linear split and using skb_copy_datagram_iter() with iov_iter_kvec() for all cases, as vhost-vsock already does. This handles both linear and non-linear skbs, properly initializes the iov_iter, and removes the now unused virtio_transport_copy_nonlinear_skb(). While touching this code, let's also check the return value of skb_copy_datagram_iter(), even though it's unlikely to fail.
- 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.