CVE-2026-52923
Linux Kernel 3.8.1 – 5.10.259
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-52923 is a high-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); 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-2026-38726
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipc: limit next_id allocation to the valid ID range The checkpoint/restore sysctl path can request the next SysV IPC id through ids->next_id. ipc_idr_alloc() currently forwards that request to idr_alloc() with…
more
an open-ended upper bound. If the valid tail of the SysV IPC id space is full, the allocation can spill beyond ipc_mni. The returned SysV IPC id still uses the normal index encoding, so later lookup and removal can target the wrong slot. This leaves the real IDR entry behind and breaks the IDR state for the object. The bug is in ipc_idr_alloc() in the checkpoint/restore path. 1. ids->next_id is passed to: idr_alloc(&ids->ipcs_idr, new, ipcid_to_idx(next_id), 0, ...) 2. The zero upper bound makes the allocation effectively open-ended. Once the valid SysV IPC tail is occupied, idr_alloc() can spill past ipc_mni and allocate an entry beyond the valid IPC id range. 3. The new object id is still encoded with the narrower SysV IPC index width: new->id = (new->seq << ipcmni_seq_shift()) + idx 4. Later removal goes through ipc_rmid(), which uses: ipcid_to_idx(ipcp->id) That truncates the real IDR index. An object actually stored at a high index can then be removed as if it lived at a low in-range index. 5. For shared memory, shm_destroy() frees the current object anyway, but the real high IDR slot is left behind as a dangling pointer. 6. A subsequent walk of /proc/sysvipc/shm reaches the stale IDR entry and dereferences freed memory. Prevent this by bounding the requested allocation to ipc_mni so the checkpoint/restore path fails once the valid range is exhausted.
- 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.
Process isolation confines the effects of a use-after-free within a single address space, reducing cross-process impact.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the blast radius when an expired pointer is dereferenced, even though they do not stop the coding flaw itself.
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.
Lifecycle management includes secure development and maintenance phases that reduce memory-safety defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free flaws via scanning or analysis.
Routine patching and replacement can eliminate known instances of expired-pointer bugs.
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.
Change-management processes can require re-validation of memory safety after modifications, indirectly reducing the weakness.