Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-53130 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38998
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/omfs: reject s_sys_blocksize smaller than OMFS_DIR_START omfs_fill_super() rejects oversized s_sys_blocksize values (> PAGE_SIZE), but it does not reject values smaller than OMFS_DIR_START (0x1b8 = 440). Later, omfs_make_empty() uses sbi->s_sys_blocksize -…
more
OMFS_DIR_START as the length argument to memset(). Since s_sys_blocksize is u32, a crafted filesystem image with s_sys_blocksize < OMFS_DIR_START causes an unsigned underflow there, wrapping to a value near 2^32. That drives a ~4 GiB memset() from bh->b_data + OMFS_DIR_START and overwrites kernel memory far beyond the backing block buffer. Add the corresponding lower-bound check alongside the existing upper-bound check in omfs_fill_super(), so that malformed images are rejected during superblock validation before any filesystem data is processed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Kernel memory corruption via malicious OMFS image directly enables local privilege escalation through exploitation of the underflow in superblock validation.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of untrusted filesystem superblock fields (s_sys_blocksize) before any arithmetic or memset operations, blocking the CWE-191 underflow.
Hardware or kernel memory-protection boundaries limit the impact of the resulting ~4 GiB write beyond the buffer.
Requires integrity verification of filesystem images or kernel modules prior to mount, catching malformed OMFS images.
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 integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.