CVE Intelligence
High

CVE-2026-68398 — ppp: defer channel free to an RCU grace period to fix pppol2tp RX UAF

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ppp: defer channel free to an RCU grace period to fix pppol2tp RX UAF pppol2tp_recv() runs in the L2TP UDP-encap softirq RX path: l2tp_udp_encap_recv() -> l2tp_recv_common() -> pppol2tp_recv() -> ppp_input(&po->chan) It runs under rcu_read_lock() holding only an l2tp_session reference and takes NO reference on the internal PPP channel (struct channel, chan->ppp) that ppp_input() dereferences. The pppox socket is SOCK_RCU_FREE, so 'po' and the embedded ppp_channel are RCU-safe. But the internal struct channel is a separate allocation that ppp_release_channel() frees with a plain kfree(): close(data socket) -> pppol2tp_release() -> pppox_unbind_sock() -> ppp_unregister_channel() -> ppp_release_channel() -> kfree(pch) For a channel that is bound (PPPIOCGCHAN) but not attached to a ppp unit (no PPPIOCCONNECT, pch->ppp == NULL) and not bridged, teardown skips both ppp_disconnect_channel()'s synchronize_net() and ppp_unbridge_channels()'s synchronize_rcu(), so the kfree() has no grace period. rcu_read_lock() in pppol2tp_recv() does not protect against a plain kfree(), so an in-flight ppp_input() on one CPU can dereference the channel just freed by close() on another CPU. The bug is reachable by an unprivileged user. Defer the channel free to an RCU callback via call_rcu() so the grace period fences any in-flight ppp_input(). The disconnect and unbridge teardown paths already fence with synchronize_net()/synchronize_rcu(); call_rcu() does the same here without stalling the close() path.

Published Aug 10, 2026 · Updated Oct 16, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: Linux

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
  • Technical severity (high)+6

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.2%
ahead of 9% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Linux
Linux
CVSS base
7.8
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Linux Linux version c2984681fe15cfb803a9132aaaf1140ab20a72c1version 4.15≥ 4.14.182 and < 4.15≥ 4.9.225 and < 4.10≥ 4.4.225 and < 4.5≥ 3.16.54 and < 3.17≥ 3.2.99 and < 3.3version 26f8819ddd10141ebe7bbce700fbab36bfa5f478
and 10 more version 5803ecd7f6ac6f747582e775caa62ac9d0489261≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < 4e47f1ac188ece11d6fdabe44166a2776cc5bd4eversion 9bcc0508576b2d50efd958f2ea1c5906749c2c89version d36e5ba7bbed5d7bd26e8609ffed503c2def401b≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < ec4215683e47424c9c4762fd3c60f552a3119142≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < 06213c85d8c0994f786c093b8b2a517987943ca6≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < c9574b8a8edeb4edd3ac6472c27ef7184bdb2baa≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < 3ab32218d7182705dae5c86f13925f458072da2c≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < 4bb84e964ff0fe0a171c965362de72f9820dbce9≥ ee40fb2e1eb5bc0ddd3f2f83c6e39a454ef5a741 and < 110b765744b147c63882f5e9cb12931c5dc8d85f
Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.8 CVSS 3.1 High 1.8 5.9 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.8 CVSS 3.1 High — — Linux via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67)

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
endpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Affected products added · linux/linux
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.8
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 10, 2026 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

7 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Linux
every CVE for this vendor

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 1d
  • Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 1d
  • Unknown CVE-2026-98424 wifi: cfg80211: undo netns switch if renaming the wiphy fails 2d
  • Unknown CVE-2026-98425 wifi: mac80211: don't warn when an IBSS has no channel to scan 2d
  • Unknown CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 2d
  • Unknown CVE-2026-98427 net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call 2d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No CWE classification.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-68398 is "ppp: defer channel free to an RCU grace period to fix pppol2tp RX UAF", rated High. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.20% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.