<?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>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 22:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>Withdrawn: BELL-CVE-2026-43389 — CVE-2026-43389 does not affect BellSoft software</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43389</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Withdrawn by the publisher.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Withdrawn by the publisher.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43389</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-315915</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315915</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-315915</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315915</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2026-43389</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43389</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its
opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under
memory pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is
problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze()
also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at
unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets
dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. 
After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try
to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user
data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the
MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all
clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for
participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case
to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags
variable and set it directly.&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;mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its
opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under
memory pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is
problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze()
also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at
unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets
dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. 
After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try
to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user
data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the
MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all
clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for
participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case
to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags
variable and set it directly.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43389</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-rmwg-23c2-w7hq</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-rmwg-23c2-w7hq</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its
opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under
memory pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is
problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze()
also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at
unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets
dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. 
After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try
to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user
data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the
MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all
clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for
participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case
to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags
variable and set it directly.&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;mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its
opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under
memory pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is
problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze()
also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at
unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets
dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. 
After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try
to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user
data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the
MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all
clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for
participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case
to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags
variable and set it directly.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-rmwg-23c2-w7hq</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2026-43389</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43389</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 85 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under memory pressure. memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze() also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze(). To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user data. Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway. Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags variable and set it directly.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 85 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: memfd_luo: always dirty all folios A dirty folio is one which has been written to.  A clean folio is its opposite.  Since a clean folio has no user data, it can be freed under memory pressure. memfd preservation with LUO saves the flag at preserve().  This is problematic.  The folio might get dirtied later.  Saving it at freeze() also doesn&amp;#39;t work, since the dirty bit from PTE is normally synced at unmap and there might still be mappings of the file at freeze(). To see why this is a problem, say a folio is clean at preserve, but gets dirtied later.  The serialized state of the folio will mark it as clean. After retrieve, the next kernel will see the folio as clean and might try to reclaim it under memory pressure.  This will result in losing user data. Mark all folios of the file as dirty, and always set the MEMFD_LUO_FOLIO_DIRTY flag.  This comes with the side effect of making all clean folios un-reclaimable.  This is a cost that has to be paid for participants of live update.  It is not expected to be a common use case to preserve a lot of clean folios anyway. Since the value of pfolio-&amp;gt;flags is a constant now, drop the flags variable and set it directly.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43389</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-1454 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1454</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, möglicherweise Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, möglicherweise Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
