<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 22:35:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>BELL-CVE-2026-64283</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/bell-cve-2026-64283</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/bell-cve-2026-64283</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>certfr-2026-avi-1162 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux d'Ubuntu. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à un a…</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-1162</link>
      <description>certfr-2026-avi-1162</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-1162</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2026-64283</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-64283</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as
unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false
negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing
unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other
flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be
tracked, as unsigned values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size
(and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking
the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts
the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of
itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but
operating on their sum is not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might
seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but
that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value
for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the
maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value,
i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as
unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false
negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing
unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other
flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be
tracked, as unsigned values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size
(and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking
the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts
the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of
itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but
operating on their sum is not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might
seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but
that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value
for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the
maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value,
i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-64283</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-64fq-x7r6-wc9g</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-64fq-x7r6-wc9g</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as
unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false
negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing
unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other
flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be
tracked, as unsigned values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size
(and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking
the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts
the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of
itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but
operating on their sum is not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might
seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but
that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value
for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the
maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value,
i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as
unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false
negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing
unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other
flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be
tracked, as unsigned values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size
(and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking
the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts
the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of
itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but
operating on their sum is not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might
seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but
that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value
for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the
maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value,
i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-64fq-x7r6-wc9g</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>openSUSE-SU-2026:11476-1 — kernel-devel-7.1.7-1.1 on GA media</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:11476-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;kernel-devel-7.1.7-1.1 on GA media&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;kernel-devel-7.1.7-1.1 on GA media&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:11476-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SUSE-SU-2026:23881-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/suse-su-2026:23881-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/suse-su-2026:23881-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2026-64283</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-64283</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 154 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be tracked, as unsigned values. On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size (and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive. Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but operating on their sum is not. For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file. Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value, i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the numbe…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 154 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file.  Passing unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be tracked, as unsigned values. On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size (and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values.  Taking the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive. Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but operating on their sum is not. For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but that&amp;#39;s not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file. Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value, i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the numbe…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-64283</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-2527 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-2527</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, dazu können DoS-Angriffe, die Offenlegung von Informationen, die Beschädigung des Speichers oder die Umgehung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen gehören.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, dazu können DoS-Angriffe, die Offenlegung von Informationen, die Beschädigung des Speichers oder die Umgehung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen gehören.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-2527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
