Skip to content

CVE-2026-98260

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exec: Cleanup POSIX timers right after de_thread() A per-thread CPU timer holds a reference to the PID of the thread it is attached to and, while it is armed, its node is queued in that thread's posix_cputimers. The task is looked up by that PID. When a non-leader thread exec()s, de_thread() changes which task owns that PID. pid_task(timer->it.cpu.pid, PIDTYPE_PID) then returns NULL, but the node is still queued on tsk, which is alive. timer_lock_sighand() takes a failed lookup to mean that the node is already dequeued, so it has nothing to undo. begin_new_exec() calls posix_cpu_timers_exit(me) right after exec_task_namespaces() and that removes the leftover node, so the state normally stays invisible. But bprm->point_of_no_return is set before de_thread(), so if unshare_files(), set_mm_exe_file(), exec_mmap() or exec_task_namespaces() fails, the task dies before it gets there. exit_itimers() then frees the k_itimer while its node is still queued, and reaping tsk later erases that freed node from the rbtree. In short: the non-leader thread B the parent timer_create(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID) timer_settime() arm_timer() // the node is queued on B execve() de_thread(B) exchange_tids(B, leader) // B's PID now belongs to the leader release_task(leader) __exit_signal(leader) posix_cpu_timers_exit(leader) // cleans leader's queue, not B's __unhash_process(leader) // that PID has no task anymore exec_mmap() mmap_read_lock_killable(old_mm) kill(B, SIGKILL) // -EINTR get_signal() do_exit() exit_itimers() posix_timer_delete() posix_cpu_timer_del() posix_timer_unhash_and_free() // freed while still queued wait4() release_task(B) posix_cpu_timers_exit(B) cleanup_timerqueue() timerqueue_del() // use-after-free Move the POSIX timer cleanup right after de_thread() before any of the later failure conditions brings the task into do_exit(). [ tglx: Move the cleanup right after de_thread() ]

CVSS
7.8Highscored by the publisher (CNA)
Exploited in the wild
Not knownUnvetted proof-of-concept code on GitHub; not in CISA KEV
EPSS
0.18%chance of exploitation in the next 30 daystop 92% of scored CVEsFIRST score of 11 Nov 2026
Fix
Fixed in < 5.7, >= 6.1.191 and <= 6.1.*, >= 6.6.158 and <= 6.6.*per the vendor; 4 more listed below
Published
6 Oct 2026analysed here 12 Nov 2026

Do first. Upgrade to a fixed release: < 5.7, >= 6.1.191 and <= 6.1.*, >= 6.6.158 and <= 6.6.*, >= 6.12.112 and <= 6.12.* (and 3 more below).

Summary

Triage

Exploitable
At runtime
Attack vector
local
Can a WAF block it?
No. See why

The summary, impact and action text on this page are written by our AI analysis pipeline, or taken from the NVD description when a CVE was imported from NVD. They are not the vendor's wording: check them against the sources. A longer AI executive summary and technical analysis are generated for signed-in accounts on the Max plan.

Affected products

ProductAffected versions
Linux>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < f6c93e8ecaaf12959b7ef6eb611351001db2ff5d>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 6f1977cea3e85cd8ab55fb337d3e1725fe61d1ce>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < d9ae467e617ca29b825493a362bf0d75ad5f4ac3>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 75aa08b93c65766040f9ca99f41ac85ad22596b6>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < d602877baf36c43c788a5f472c977e0be414029f>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < acb03d3881818581052924a9bbbe92b8741ed4485.7Vendor says fixed in: < 5.7, >= 6.1.191 and <= 6.1.*, >= 6.6.158 and <= 6.6.*, >= 6.12.112 and <= 6.12.*, >= 6.18.54 and <= 6.18.*, >= 7.2.8 and <= 7.2.*, >= 7.3 and <= *

As published in the CVE Program record. A version outside these ranges is not a statement that it is unaffected — vendors sometimes understate a range, and distribution-backported builds carry upstream numbers that do not reflect what was patched into them.

Fix and mitigation

WAF and other mitigations

Can a WAF block it? No. The attack needs local access to the machine, so a WAF is not on its path.

Also consider: patch

Based on the attack vector (local or physical access). We check Cloudflare, AWS, Google Cloud Armor and Azure; for Akamai, Imperva, Fastly, F5, ask your vendor.

Remediation steps (AI-written)

Step-by-step remediation is generated for accounts on the Max plan, for CVEs that match a technology in their stack. Add this technology to your stack to see the fix checklist.

Exploitation evidence

CISA KEV catalog
Not listed as of our last sync.
Public exploit code
Unvetted proof-of-concept code on GitHub: 31 GitHub proofs of concept

Listed so you can judge urgency, not as a recommendation to run anything. GitHub “proofs of concept” are unvetted: some are fake or carry malware. Exploit-DB marks the entries its staff verified.

Timeline

  1. 6 Oct 2026Published
  2. 18 Oct 2026First proof-of-concept repository on GitHub (unvetted)12 days later
  3. 30 Oct 2026CVE record last updated13 days later
  4. 12 Nov 2026Analysed by vulneraibility.com13 days later

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

MetricValueWhat it means
Attack vectorLocalLocal access required (shell, logged-in user).
Attack complexityLowRepeatable attack, no special conditions.
Privileges requiredLowThe attacker needs basic user privileges.
User interactionNoneNo victim action needed.
ScopeUnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
ConfidentialityHighTotal data disclosure possible.
IntegrityHighComplete modification possible.
AvailabilityHighFull outage possible.

Common questions

Is CVE-2026-98260 being exploited?

Not confirmed. CVE-2026-98260 does not appear in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, which records only exploitation that has been observed and reported publicly. That is evidence of absence of a report, not evidence the flaw is unattacked. EPSS currently estimates a 0.18% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

How severe is CVE-2026-98260?

CVE-2026-98260 is rated High with a CVSS score of 7.8. Severity describes how bad exploitation would be, not how likely it is: pair it with exploitation evidence before deciding what to patch first.

Is there a patch for CVE-2026-98260?

Not known from our data. No patch reference has been recorded for CVE-2026-98260, which is not the same as no patch existing — a fix may have shipped without a tagged reference, or after this record was written. The vendor advisory is the only authority on whether a fix exists, and mitigations may be available regardless.

Exploitation status reflects CISA's KEV catalog as we last synced it. Check the catalog directly.

References

NVDCVE.orgCVE DetailsSource

6 references in the CVE record, grouped by the tags the record gives them.

Other links (6)

Where the data on this page comes from

Summary, impact and triage tags: written by our AI analysis pipeline from the sources above. Check them against the sources.

Similar CVEs

Get CVEs like this by email. Join the free digest: the CVEs we flag as major, all CVSS 8.0 or higher, in up to three emails a day (sent at 05:00, 11:00 and 15:00 UTC). Matching alerts to the products you run needs an account, and accounts are invite-only during the beta.

© 2026 vulneraibility.com