In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tls: Purge async_hold in tls_decrypt_async_wait()
The async_hold queue pins encrypted input skbs while the AEAD engine references their scatterlist data. Once tls_decrypt_async_wait() returns, every AEAD operation has completed and the engine no longer references those skbs, so they can be freed unconditionally.
A subsequent patch adds batch async decryption to tls_sw_read_sock(), introducing a new call site that must drain pending AEAD operations and release held skbs. Move __skb_queue_purge(&ctx->async_hold) into tls_decrypt_async_wait() so the purge is centralized and every caller -- recvmsg's drain path, the -EBUSY fallback in tls_do_decryption(), and the new read_sock batch path -- releases held skbs on synchronization without each site managing the purge independently.
This fixes a leak when tls_strp_msg_hold() fails part-way through, after having added some cloned skbs to the async_hold queue. tls_decrypt_sg() will then call tls_decrypt_async_wait() to process all pending decrypts, and drop back to synchronous mode, but tls_sw_recvmsg() only flushes the async_hold queue when one record has been processed in "fully-async" mode, which may not be the case here.
[[email protected]: added leak comment]
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.1.158 | 6.1.168 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.6.114 | 6.6.131 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.12.55 | 6.12.80 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17.5 | 6.18 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.18.1 | 6.18.21 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.11 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.18 | 6.18.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc1 | 7.0-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc2 | 7.0-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc3 | 7.0-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc4 | 7.0-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc5 | 7.0-rc5.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc6 | 7.0-rc6.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc7 | 7.0-rc7.x |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.