Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS scores by FIRST (EPSS SIG), generated by Empirical Security. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-46253 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210); ranked at the 7th 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-2026-34115
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pstore/ram: fix buffer overflow in persistent_ram_save_old() persistent_ram_save_old() can be called multiple times for the same persistent_ram_zone (e.g., via ramoops_pstore_read -> ramoops_get_next_prz for PSTORE_TYPE_DMESG records). Currently, the function only allocates prz->old_log…
more
when it is NULL, but it unconditionally updates prz->old_log_size to the current buffer size and then performs memcpy_fromio() using this new size. If the buffer size has grown since the first allocation (which can happen across different kernel boot cycles), this leads to: 1. A heap buffer overflow (OOB write) in the memcpy_fromio() calls 2. A subsequent OOB read when ramoops_pstore_read() accesses the buffer using the incorrect (larger) old_log_size The KASAN splat would look similar to: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ramoops_pstore_read+0x... Read of size N at addr ... by task ... The conditions are likely extremely hard to hit: 0. Crash with a ramoops write of less-than-record-max-size bytes. 1. Reboot: ramoops registers, pstore_get_records(0) reads old crash, allocates old_log with size X 2. Crash handler registered, timer started (if pstore_update_ms >= 0) 3. Oops happens (non-fatal, system continues) 4. pstore_dump() writes oops via ramoops_pstore_write() size Y (>X) 5. pstore_new_entry = 1, pstore_timer_kick() called 6. System continues running (not a panic oops) 7. Timer fires after pstore_update_ms milliseconds 8. pstore_timefunc() → schedule_work() → pstore_dowork() → pstore_get_records(1) 9. ramoops_get_next_prz() → persistent_ram_save_old() 10. buffer_size() returns Y, but old_log is X bytes 11. Y > X: memcpy_fromio() overflows heap Requirements: - a prior crash record exists that did not fill the record size (almost impossible since the crash handler writes as much as it can possibly fit into the record, capped by max record size and the kmsg buffer almost always exceeds the max record size) - pstore_update_ms >= 0 (disabled by default) - Non-fatal oops (system survives) Free and reallocate the buffer when the new size differs from the previously allocated size. This ensures old_log always has sufficient space for the data being copied.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.