CVE-2026-53267 — linux / linux_kernel
Uncontrolled RecursionIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: nft_ct: bail out on template ct in get eval
I noticed this issue while looking at a historic syzbot report 1.
A rule like the one below is enough to trigger the bug:
table ip t {
chain pre {
type filter hook prerouting priority raw;
ct zone set 1
ct original saddr 1.2.3.4 accept
}
}
The first expression attaches a per-cpu template ct via nft_ct_set_zone_eval() (nf_ct_tmpl_alloc -> kzalloc, tuple is all zero, nf_ct_l3num(ct) == 0). The next expression then calls nft_ct_get_eval() on the same skb, treats the template as a real ct and hits the 16-byte memcpy path. With dreg at NFT_REG32_15 this overflows past struct nft_regs on the kernel stack; with smaller dreg values it silently clobbers adjacent registers.
Reject template ct at the eval entry and in nft_ct_get_fast_eval(), mirroring the check nft_ct_set_eval() already has. Additionally, bound the address copy in NFT_CT_SRC / NFT_CT_DST by priv->len instead of by nf_ct_l3num(ct): nf_ct_get_tuple() zeroes the tuple before pkt_to_tuple() fills in only the protocol-relevant leading bytes, so the trailing bytes of tuple->{src,dst}.u3.all are well-defined zero. priv->len is validated at rule load, so the copy size is now bounded by the destination register rather than by an untrusted field on the conntrack.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 4.1, < 6.6.143 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.94 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.18.36 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.0.13 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc2 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc3 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc4 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc6 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2e154b5f53f1b0b490c7b8b02499f90feb86b1d5
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3027ecbdb5fdf9200251c21d4818e4c447ef78e1
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8470f676eadeab99132708acb1a85915664d6115
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/af80f78ce984649e1698b841cd33f4fa505ad828
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f071b0bf078146368d18e4eec386bf2ddc0ab7e0
Is CVE-2026-53267 exposed on your perimeter?
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
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.