CVE-2026-52996
Linux Kernel 6.6.32 – 6.6.141
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-52996 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-2026-38864
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: fix durable fd leak on ClientGUID mismatch in durable v2 open ksmbd_lookup_fd_cguid() returns a ksmbd_file with its refcount incremented via ksmbd_fp_get(). parse_durable_handle_context() in the DURABLE_REQ_V2 case properly releases this…
more
reference on every path inside the ClientGUID-match branch, either by calling ksmbd_put_durable_fd() or by transferring ownership to dh_info->fp for a successful reconnect. However, when an entry exists in the global file table with the same CreateGuid but a different ClientGUID, the code simply falls through to the new-open path without dropping the reference obtained from ksmbd_lookup_fd_cguid(). Per MS-SMB2 section 3.3.5.9.10 ("Handling the SMB2_CREATE_DURABLE_HANDLE_REQUEST_V2 Create Context"), the server MUST locate an Open whose Open.CreateGuid matches the request's CreateGuid AND whose Open.ClientGuid matches the ClientGuid of the connection that received the request. If no such Open is found, the server MUST continue with the normal open execution phase. A CreateGuid hit with a ClientGUID mismatch is therefore the "Open not found" case: proceeding with a new open is correct, but the reference obtained purely as a side effect of the lookup must not be leaked. Repeated requests that hit this mismatch pin global_ft entries, prevent __ksmbd_close_fd() from ever running for the corresponding files, and defeat the durable scavenger, leading to long-lived resource leaks. Release the reference in the mismatch path and clear dh_info->fp so subsequent logic does not mistake a non-matching lookup result for a reconnect target.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Resource leak in ksmbd durable handle handling enables repeated crafted SMB requests to exhaust server file descriptors and defeat cleanup, mapping to endpoint DoS via service exhaustion.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Rigorous developer testing of durable handle v2 reconnect paths (including ClientGUID mismatch cases) would have exercised ksmbd_lookup_fd_cguid + parse_durable_handle_context and detected the unreleased ksmbd_fp_get reference.
Mandating secure coding standards and automated analysis for reference counting and error-path cleanup directly prevents the missed ksmbd_put_durable_fd on the CreateGuid-hit/ClientGUID-mismatch branch.
Applying engineering principles for complete resource acquisition/release on every control-flow path would have required the lookup reference to be dropped before falling through to the new-open case.
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.