CVE-2026-49419
Freebsd 15.0 … 15.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-49419 is a high-severity Improper Update of Reference Count (CWE-911) vulnerability in Freebsd Freebsd. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 22th 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-2026-62231
Vulnerability Data
When the JAIL_AT_DESC flag is specified, kern_jail_set() and kern_jail_get() released the reference to the caller's current prison before looking up the jail descriptor. If the descriptor lookup failed, error-handling paths released the same reference a second time. An unprivileged local…
more
user can trigger a prison reference count underflow, which may cause the prison structure to be freed while still in use. When this is done on the jail host, the bug will generally result in an immediate panic. However, if the user is running in a jail, then it may be possible to exploit the bug to elevate privileges.
- 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 analysis directly exercise reference-counted paths and reveal incorrect updates.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate safe reference-count patterns and static checks.
Engineering principles can require correct resource lifetime and reference management during design and implementation.
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 prevent reference-count coding errors via reviews, static analysis, and testing.
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.
Secure development lifecycle practices can include reference-counting rules and automated checks that reduce the likelihood of improper updates.
Application security requirements can mandate correct resource-lifetime management, indirectly addressing reference-count errors.
Secure system architecture principles encourage explicit resource-ownership models that mitigate reference-count misuse.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe correct increment/decrement patterns, covering most instances of this weakness.
Security testing in development can detect reference-count defects before release, providing partial mitigation.
Change-management processes may catch reference-count issues introduced by modifications, but do not address the root coding flaw.