Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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-2026-52955 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked at the 30th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38823
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: libceph: Fix potential out-of-bounds access in crush_decode() A message of type CEPH_MSG_OSD_MAP containing a crush map with at least one bucket has two fields holding the bucket algorithm. If the…
more
values in these two fields differ, an out-of-bounds access can occur. This is the case because the first algorithm field (alg) is used to allocate the correct amount of memory for a bucket of this type, while the second algorithm field inside the bucket (b->alg) is used in the subsequent processing. This patch fixes the issue by adding a check that compares alg and b->alg and aborts the processing in case they differ. Furthermore, b->alg is set to 0 in this case, because the destruction of the crush map also uses this field to determine the bucket type, which can again result in an out-of-bounds access when trying to free the memory pointed to by the fields of the bucket. To correctly free the memory allocated for the bucket in such a case, the corresponding call to kfree is moved from the algorithm-specific crush_destroy_bucket functions to the generic crush_destroy_bucket().
- 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 directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability of an overflow that results from an incorrect size calculation.
Flaw-remediation processes that include vulnerability scanning or static analysis will surface buffer-size errors.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
Secure-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
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.