CVE Intelligence
Critical

CVE-2026-89702 — In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: size fh_verify…

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: size fh_verify server sockaddr slot by xpt_locallen The nfsd_fh_verify and nfsd_fh_verify_err tracepoints declare the server sockaddr slot sized by xpt_remotelen but fill it from xpt_local using xpt_locallen: TP_STRUCT__entry( ... __sockaddr(server, rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_remotelen) ... ) TP_fast_assign( ... __assign_sockaddr(server, &rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_local, rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_locallen); ... ) When xpt_locallen exceeds xpt_remotelen, __assign_sockaddr's memcpy writes past the reserved ring-buffer slot. In the reverse direction (xpt_locallen < xpt_remotelen) the slot is oversized and the unwritten tail leaks prior ring-buffer contents to trace consumers. The write-past-end case is reachable on NFS/UDP. svc_xprt_set_remote() is only called from svc_tcp_accept() (net/sunrpc/svcsock.c) and from the RDMA connect path; svc_create_socket() for UDP calls only svc_xprt_set_local(), so xpt_remotelen stays 0 for the xprt's lifetime. Every fh_verify trace for an NFSv2/v3-over-UDP request then copies 16 or 28 bytes from xpt_local into a zero-byte slot. The other NFSD tracepoints that record the server address (NFSD_TRACE_PROC_CALL_FIELDS, NFSD_TRACE_PROC_RES_FIELDS, SVC_RQST_ENDPOINT_FIELDS) already size the server slot by xpt_locallen; nfsd_fh_verify and nfsd_fh_verify_err were the only exceptions. Fix by sizing the server slot with xpt_locallen so the declared slot matches the copy length. The client slot and its assignment already agree on xpt_remotelen and are left untouched.

Published Sep 11, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database · CNA: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

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
  • Technical severity (critical)+10

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
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
—
Affected products not yet identified by the sources.
CVSS base
9.8
Critical · 1 source(s)

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. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet: follow the vendor advisory and map candidate assets by component name.
  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.

Affected products not yet identified by the sources.

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
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)

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
  • 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
    Sep 11, 2026 · 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • No affected product/version with evidence in the sources.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No CISA SSVC assessment.
  • 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-2026-89702 is "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: size fh_verify…", rated Critical. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity. 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.