Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-53277

Linux Kernel 6.12 – 6.18.36

Published
25 June 2026
Modified
15 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0011 1th percentile
Risk Priority 59 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-53277 is a high-severity Improper Synchronization (CWE-662) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. 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 1th 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 SC-39 (Process Isolation) and SC-4 (Information in Shared System Resources) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: arm64: Take the SRCU lock for page table walks in fault injection and AT emulation walk_s1() and kvm_walk_nested_s2() expect to be called while holding kvm->srcu to guard against memslot…

more

changes. While this is generally the case, __kvm_at_s12() and __kvm_find_s1_desc_level() call into the respective walkers without taking kvm->srcu. Fix by acquiring kvm->srcu prior to the table walk in both instances.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
T1548 Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may circumvent mechanisms designed to control privilege elevation to gain higher-level permissions.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-49994Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-40969Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-43863Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-56743Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-35997Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-27005Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-40972Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-35999Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-43838Same product: Linux Linux Kernel
CVE-2024-35786Same product: Linux Linux Kernel

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
7.1 · 6.12 — 6.18.36 · 6.19 — 7.0.13

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V15.4.1
  • V6.5.1
  • V15.1.3
  • V15.4.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Process isolation reduces the attack surface and blast radius of synchronization failures but does not itself implement the required synchronization.

SC-4 directly requires preventing unintended information transfer through shared resources, which is achieved only by proper synchronization primitives for exclusive access.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require synchronization mechanisms and concurrency testing to prevent race conditions.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect synchronization flaws but does not itself implement the required controls.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle requires concurrency controls and synchronization primitives to prevent race conditions.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking mechanisms.

prevents

Secure system architecture principles include thread-safety and resource-locking mechanisms to avoid improper synchronization.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly mandate proper use of locks, semaphores, and atomic operations to eliminate race conditions.

References