CVE Intelligence
Critical

CVE-2026-72014 — drbd: reject data replies with an out-of-range payload size

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: reject data replies with an out-of-range payload size recv_dless_read() receives a P_DATA_REPLY from a peer into the bio of an outstanding read request. The peer-supplied payload length reaches it as the signed int data_size, and two peer-controlled inputs can make it negative. With a negotiated data-integrity-alg the digest length is subtracted first, so a reply whose payload is smaller than the digest underflows data_size. With no integrity algorithm (the default) data_size is assigned from the unsigned h95/h100 wire length and drbdd() never bounds it for a payload-carrying command, so a length above INT_MAX casts it negative; this path needs no non-default feature. The bio receive loop then computes expect = min_t(int, data_size, bv_len), which is negative, and drbd_recv_all_warn(mapped, expect) receives with a size_t of SIZE_MAX into the first mapped page. The sibling receive path read_in_block() is not affected: it uses an unsigned size and rejects it against DRBD_MAX_BIO_SIZE before receiving. Reject a data reply whose size is negative after the optional digest subtraction, covering both triggers. Impact: a malicious or man-in-the-middle DRBD peer copies attacker-chosen bytes past a bio page in the receiver, corrupting kernel memory. A node that reads from its peer (a diskless node, or read-balancing to the peer) is exposed in the default configuration; data-integrity-alg is not required.

Published Aug 15, 2026 · Updated Oct 16, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · 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 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
  • Technical severity (critical)+10
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

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
0.72%
ahead of 53% of scored CVEs · Oct 16, 2026
Affects
Linux
Linux
CVSS base
9.8
Critical · 3 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
Yes
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. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Linux Linux ≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < bca33f5442c3094511719d9db792ce3165d87e76≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < 741a682535deffe9ab7e5c89caf83571efbc9dd9≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < f14e87d7b166490bceb9603b39310e51595d05b9≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < f16866c62656865854106b79bcf6e4ca97a51a92≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < 5f59a8142000f0b8f75c432209ead73c424a745d≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < 38cc4867540ae8beedfe41a1a1a6ed37052c77d6≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < 648d4317326e6aa3f8c05cbf0fd14cc2eba6ca99≥ b411b3637fa71fce9cf2acf0639009500f5892fe and < bd910a7660d280595ef94cb6d193951d855d330f
and 1 more version 2.6.33
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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
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
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.9 5.9 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
9.8 CVSS 3.1 Critical — — Linux via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67)

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 16, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.72%

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

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 · 9.8
    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 15, 2026 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× References added · Oct 16, 2026 – Oct 16, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

10 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Linux
every CVE for this vendor

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 1d
  • CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 1d
  • CVE-2026-98424 wifi: cfg80211: undo netns switch if renaming the wiphy fails 2d
  • CVE-2026-98425 wifi: mac80211: don't warn when an IBSS has no channel to scan 2d
  • CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 2d
  • 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-2026-72014 is "drbd: reject data replies with an out-of-range payload size", rated Critical. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.72% 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.