CVE-2026-64283

HIGHNVD 7.07.0
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.0 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-25. NVD baseline CVSS 7.0; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
7.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0%CVSS: 7.0Exploit: None knownExposed: 0

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values

When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file. Passing unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be tracked, as unsigned values.

On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size (and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values. Taking the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.

Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but operating on their sum is not.

For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but that's not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.

Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value, i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the number of pages in a single memslot to the largest positive signed 32-bit value:

if (id < KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS && (mem->memory_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES) return -EINVAL;

and so that maximum "size" will ever be is 0x7fffffff000.

The sum of the two is, however, problematic. While the size is restricted by KVM's memslot logic, the offset is not, i.e. the offset is completely unchecked until the "offset + size > i_size_read(inode)" check. If the offset is the (nearly) largest possible _positive_ value, then adding size to the offset can result in a signed, negative 64-bit value. When compared against the size of the file (guaranteed to be positive), the negative sum is always smaller, and KVM incorrectly allows the absurd offset.

Opportunistically add missing includes in kvm_mm.h (instead of relying on its parents).

CVSS v3
7.0
EG Score
7.0(medium)
EG Risk
36(Track)
EG Risk 36/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity70% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS PROB
0%
EPSS %ILE
4%
KEV
Not listed

Published

July 25, 2026

Last Modified

August 17, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Aug 13, 2026
No patch confirmed yet.
generic

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f3a98d5881b9bd4807f49156143565f6aabcef1e
generic

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/eba85fee7fc6cf28fec38a5bf3c378bef9a79ca6

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-64283(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(5)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFixed inDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (174 versions)
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFixed inDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.1~rc7-1~exp1 (158 versions)7.1.4-1

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(5)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 20× in last 7d / 99× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 171 total refreshes for this CVE.

  1. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-09-20 01:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-09-20 01:37 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-09-20 01:37 UTCGHSA enrichment
  5. 2026-09-18 19:53 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-09-18 19:53 UTCGHSA enrichment
  7. 2026-09-18 02:53 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-09-18 02:53 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-09-18 02:53 UTCGHSA enrichment
  10. 2026-09-17 01:57 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-09-17 01:57 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-09-17 01:57 UTCGHSA enrichment
  13. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-09-16 06:38 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-09-16 06:38 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-09-16 06:38 UTCGHSA enrichment
  17. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-09-15 09:32 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-09-15 09:32 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-09-15 09:32 UTCGHSA enrichment
  21. 2026-09-14 10:43 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-09-14 10:43 UTCGHSA enrichment
  23. 2026-09-13 23:40 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-09-13 23:40 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-09-13 23:40 UTCGHSA enrichment
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-09-13 12:39 UTCVendor advisory
  2. 2026-09-13 12:39 UTCGHSA enrichment
  3. 2026-09-13 01:37 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-09-13 01:37 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-09-13 01:37 UTCGHSA enrichment
  6. 2026-09-12 14:34 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-09-12 14:34 UTCGHSA enrichment
  8. 2026-09-12 03:34 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-09-12 03:34 UTCGHSA enrichment
  10. 2026-09-11 16:33 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-09-11 16:33 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-09-11 16:33 UTCGHSA enrichment
  13. 2026-09-11 14:53 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-09-11 09:37 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-09-11 02:23 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-09-11 02:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
  17. 2026-09-10 13:31 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-09-10 13:31 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-09-10 13:31 UTCGHSA enrichment
  20. 2026-09-09 08:40 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-09-09 08:40 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-09-09 08:40 UTCGHSA enrichment
  23. 2026-09-08 22:01 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-09-07 21:21 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-07 21:21 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-09-07 21:21 UTCGHSA enrichment
  27. 2026-09-07 16:01 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-09-06 19:00 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-09-06 19:00 UTCGHSA enrichment
  30. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-09-06 07:59 UTCGHSA enrichment
  32. 2026-09-05 19:21 UTCEG score recompute
  33. 2026-09-05 19:21 UTCGHSA enrichment
  34. 2026-09-05 15:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-09-05 06:51 UTCEG score recompute
  36. 2026-09-05 06:51 UTCGHSA enrichment
  37. 2026-09-04 12:42 UTCEG score recompute
  38. 2026-09-04 12:42 UTCGHSA enrichment
  39. 2026-09-04 05:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-09-02 14:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-09-01 23:14 UTCEG score recompute
  42. 2026-09-01 23:14 UTCGHSA enrichment
  43. 2026-09-01 13:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-09-01 04:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-08-30 22:12 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-08-30 22:12 UTCGHSA enrichment
  47. 2026-08-30 19:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-08-30 11:12 UTCEG score recompute
  49. 2026-08-30 11:12 UTCGHSA enrichment
  50. 2026-08-30 01:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-08-30 00:12 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-08-30 00:11 UTCGHSA enrichment
  53. 2026-08-28 21:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-08-27 21:06 UTCEG score recompute
  55. 2026-08-27 21:06 UTCGHSA enrichment
  56. 2026-08-27 09:58 UTCGHSA enrichment
  57. 2026-08-26 19:51 UTCEG score recompute
  58. 2026-08-26 19:50 UTCGHSA enrichment
  59. 2026-08-26 14:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-08-26 06:52 UTCGHSA enrichment
  61. 2026-08-25 19:41 UTCEG score recompute
  62. 2026-08-25 19:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  63. 2026-08-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-08-25 08:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  65. 2026-08-24 21:41 UTCEG score recompute
  66. 2026-08-24 21:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  67. 2026-08-24 10:25 UTCEG score recompute
  68. 2026-08-24 10:25 UTCGHSA enrichment
  69. 2026-08-23 23:24 UTCGHSA enrichment
  70. 2026-08-23 12:24 UTCGHSA enrichment
  71. 2026-08-23 01:23 UTCEG score recompute
  72. 2026-08-23 01:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
  73. 2026-08-23 00:19 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-08-22 14:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
  75. 2026-08-22 03:21 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-64283?
CVE-2026-64283 is a high vulnerability published on July 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative…
When was CVE-2026-64283 disclosed?
CVE-2026-64283 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on July 25, 2026, with the most recent update on August 17, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-64283 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-64283 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the top 96.4% of all scored CVEs.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-64283?
CVE-2026-64283 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.0 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-64283?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-64283, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-64283

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-64283?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.