CVE-2026-64405 — linux / linux_kernel
NULL Pointer DereferenceIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: hci_conn: Fix null ptr deref in hci_abort_conn()
hci_abort_conn() read hci_skb_event(hdev->sent_cmd) when a connection was pending, but hdev->sent_cmd can be NULL while req_status is still HCI_REQ_PEND, leading to a NULL pointer dereference and a general protection fault from the hci_rx_work() receive path.
Instead of inspecting hdev->sent_cmd, track the in-flight create connection command with a new per-connection HCI_CONN_CREATE flag and route all cancellation through hci_cancel_connect_sync(), which dispatches to a dedicated per-type cancel function. The create command is in exactly one of two states: still queued, or in flight. The cancel function holds cmd_sync_work_lock across the whole decision: the worker takes this lock to dequeue every entry, so while it is held a queued command cannot start running and an in-flight command cannot complete and let the next command become pending. This keeps the flag test and hci_cmd_sync_cancel() atomic with respect to the worker, so a queued command is simply dequeued, and an in-flight command owned by this connection is cancelled without the risk of cancelling an unrelated command that became pending in the meantime. CIS uses the same flag mechanism via HCI_CONN_CREATE_CIS but cannot be dequeued per-connection.
hci_acl_create_conn_sync() and hci_le_create_conn_sync() clear HCI_CONN_CREATE after the create command completes, but the command status handler can free conn via hci_conn_del() (for example when the controller rejects the connection) while the worker is still blocked on the connection complete event. Hold a reference on conn across the create command so the flag can be cleared without a use-after-free.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.1.83, < 6.1.118 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.4.16, < 6.5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.5.3, < 6.6.145 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.97 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.18.39 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.1.4 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.2-rc1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.2-rc2 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/12917f591cea1af36087dba5b9ec888652f0b42a
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/61701912c58a05f6a043f097cc177a964abef348
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/70c397b62ee015e19b3924d9da741c8dda017819
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/83b22d7f7c384564fa42c3cf19bec715c693d7a2
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/903227b6168bb99fd57d4e3c9c1b5014986198e0
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b42cb640a0493d16b61ddd267420274be15efdc1
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.