<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2026 16:59:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2025-15674</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2025-15674</link>
      <description>bdu:2025-15674</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2025-15674</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BELL-CVE-2025-39891</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2025-39891</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2025-39891</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>certfr-2025-avi-0894 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de Debian LTS. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à…</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2025-avi-0894</link>
      <description>certfr-2025-avi-0894</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2025-avi-0894</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-314809</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-314809</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-314809</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-314809</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2025-39891</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2025-39891</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in
mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out
memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics()
and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls
mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in.
Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily
initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at
the start that could result in an information leak.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s
more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in
mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out
memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics()
and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls
mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in.
Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily
initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at
the start that could result in an information leak.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s
more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2025-39891</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-2237-jrrh-3624</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-2237-jrrh-3624</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in
mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out
memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics()
and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls
mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in.
Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily
initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at
the start that could result in an information leak.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s
more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in
mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out
memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics()
and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls
mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in.
Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily
initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at
the start that could result in an information leak.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s
more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-2237-jrrh-3624</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>msrc_CVE-2025-39891 — wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2025-39891</link>
      <description>msrc_CVE-2025-39891</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2025-39891</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OESA-2026-3156 — kernel security update</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-3156</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4: kernel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself.&#13;
&#13;
Security Fix(es):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect &amp;amp;quot;concurrent&amp;amp;quot; writes
and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector
simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once
the writes are completed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In handling &amp;amp;quot;superseeded&amp;amp;quot; writes, we forgot a kref_get,
resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free,
and further to kernel crashes with symptoms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently
all users of &amp;amp;quot;two-primaries&amp;amp;quot; handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up.
That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager,
and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node
before starting writes on the other node.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Which means that other than for &amp;amp;quot;test cases&amp;amp;quot;,
this code path is never taken in real life.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays.  We still detect
&amp;amp;quot;write conflicts&amp;amp;quot;, but no longer try to be smart about them.
We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent
writes. If they do, that&amp;amp;apos;s their fault.(CVE-2025-38708)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;amp;gt…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4: kernel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself.&#13;
&#13;
Security Fix(es):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect &amp;amp;quot;concurrent&amp;amp;quot; writes
and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector
simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once
the writes are completed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In handling &amp;amp;quot;superseeded&amp;amp;quot; writes, we forgot a kref_get,
resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free,
and further to kernel crashes with symptoms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently
all users of &amp;amp;quot;two-primaries&amp;amp;quot; handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up.
That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager,
and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node
before starting writes on the other node.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Which means that other than for &amp;amp;quot;test cases&amp;amp;quot;,
this code path is never taken in real life.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays.  We still detect
&amp;amp;quot;write conflicts&amp;amp;quot;, but no longer try to be smart about them.
We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent
writes. If they do, that&amp;amp;apos;s their fault.(CVE-2025-38708)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adapter-&amp;amp;gt…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-3156</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>openSUSE-SU-2025:20081-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2025:20081-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2025:20081-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SUSE-SU-2025:03600-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2025:03600-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Security update for the Linux Kernel&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2025:03600-1</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2025-39891</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2025-39891</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-lts-xenial, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws-hwe, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe, Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge and 214 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey(). There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in. Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at the start that could result in an information leak. Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-lts-xenial, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws-hwe, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe, Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge and 214 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero The adapter-&amp;gt;chan_stats[] array is initialized in mwifiex_init_channel_scan_gap() with vmalloc(), which doesn&amp;#39;t zero out memory.  The array is filled in mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() and then the user can query the data in mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey(). There are two potential issues here.  What if the user calls mwifiex_cfg80211_dump_survey() before the data has been filled in. Also the mwifiex_update_chan_statistics() function doesn&amp;#39;t necessarily initialize the whole array.  Since the array was not initialized at the start that could result in an information leak. Also this array is pretty small.  It&amp;#39;s a maximum of 900 bytes so it&amp;#39;s more appropriate to use kcalloc() instead vmalloc().&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2025-39891</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2025-2170 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2025-2170</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen und andere nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, möglicherweise um beliebigen Code auszuführen oder eine Speicherbeschädigung zu verursachen.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen und andere nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, möglicherweise um beliebigen Code auszuführen oder eine Speicherbeschädigung zu verursachen.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2025-2170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
