Unknown

CVE-2026-92483 — liveupdate: Remember FLB retrieve() status

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liveupdate: Remember FLB retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on an FLB. It does so to avoid multiple retrievals of the same FLB. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the FLB is retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the FLB is likely in a very different state from what the code expects. All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_flb_retrieve_one() returns the error immediately, without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. If the user attempts to retrieve another file registered with the same FLB, LUO will attempt to call the FLB's retrieve() callback again. The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The FLB is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic normally expects (e.g. some KHO pages may have already been restored and freed). There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. This is done by changing the retrieved bool to a retrieve_status integer. A value of 0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it failed and the error code is the value. This is similar to commit f85b1c6af5bc ("liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status") which did the same for LUO files.

Published Sep 17, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: Linux

Low

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)+2

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

0.22%

ahead of 12% of scored CVEs · Oct 16, 2026

Affects

Linux

CVSS base

—

Score not published yet.

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.

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

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Linux	Linux	≥ cab056f2aae7250af50e503b81a80dfc567a1acd and < 908f3ea3f050b865c5c2d8c1da566185a4a3efc0≥ cab056f2aae7250af50e503b81a80dfc567a1acd and < 5c4a03afcb21783987ffc64562b76ddd5a21b12bversion 7.0	Vulnerable	CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 16, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.22%

Detection

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

Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.

application logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Record published
Oct 15, 2026
Affected products added · linux/linux
Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
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 17, 2026 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

2 on the record

git.kernel.org/stable/c/908f3ea3f050b865c5c2d8c1da566185a4a3efc0
NIST National Vulnerability Database
git.kernel.org/stable/c/5c4a03afcb21783987ffc64562b76ddd5a21b12b
NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Linux
every CVE for this vendor

Related CVEs (same products)

Unknown CVE-2026-98868 dm-pcache: reject a kset that overruns its segment 6h
Unknown CVE-2026-98867 dm-pcache: bound the logical key offset from persistent memory 6h
Unknown CVE-2026-98866 sched/cache: Introduce task_struct->sched_cache_grp to fix UAF 6h
Unknown CVE-2026-98861 fprobe: Use guard(rcu_sched_notrace) and check rcu_is_watching() 6h
Unknown CVE-2026-98856 kprobes: Skip disarmed probes when checking optkprobe overlap 6h
Unknown CVE-2026-98857 ipvs: bound LBLCR and LBLC cache growth 6h

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 CVSS score published by NVD, the CNA, CISA or GitHub so far.
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-2026-92483 is "liveupdate: Remember FLB retrieve() status", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. EPSS 0.22% 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.