https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Fri, 02 Oct 2026 10:54:37 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-11094 bdu:2026-11094 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-11094 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43203 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43203 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0696 certfr-2026-avi-0696 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0696 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-347855 EUVD-2026-347855 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-347855 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43203 <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</p> <p>When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet().</p> <p>One of the race conditions can occur as follows:</p> <p>CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF</p> <p>Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure.</p> <p>This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</p> <p>When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet().</p> <p>One of the race conditions can occur as follows:</p> <p>CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF</p> <p>Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure.</p> <p>This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43203 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-864f-qffm-34wc <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</p> <p>When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet().</p> <p>One of the race conditions can occur as follows:</p> <p>CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF</p> <p>Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure.</p> <p>This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</p> <p>When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet().</p> <p>One of the race conditions can occur as follows:</p> <p>CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF</p> <p>Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure.</p> <p>This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-864f-qffm-34wc https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:21555-1 <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:21555-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:23066-1 <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:23066-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43203 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux, 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 and 232 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet(). One of the race conditions can occur as follows: CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure. This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux, 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 and 232 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet(). One of the race conditions can occur as follows: CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-&gt; // UAF Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure. This bug was identified through static analysis.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43203 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1405 <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, möglicherweise Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen.</p> <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, möglicherweise Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1405