CVE-2025-39726 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-39726
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-39726 Details

Status: Received on 05 Sep 2025, 18:15 UTC

Published on: 05 Sep 2025, 18:15 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-39726 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-39726: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: s390/ism: fix concurrency management in ism_cmd() The s390x ISM device data sheet clearly states that only one request-response sequence is allowable per ISM function at any point in time. Unfortunately as of today the s390/ism driver in Linux does not honor that requirement. This patch aims to rectify that. This problem was discovered based on Aliaksei's bug report which states that for certain workloads the ISM functions end up entering error state (with PEC 2 as seen from the logs) after a while and as a consequence connections handled by the respective function break, and for future connection requests the ISM device is not considered -- given it is in a dysfunctional state. During further debugging PEC 3A was observed as well. A kernel message like [ 1211.244319] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: Event 0x2 reports an error for PCI function 0x61a is a reliable indicator of the stated function entering error state with PEC 2. Let me also point out that a kernel message like [ 1211.244325] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: The ism driver bound to the device does not support error recovery is a reliable indicator that the ISM function won't be auto-recovered because the ISM driver currently lacks support for it. On a technical level, without this synchronization, commands (inputs to the FW) may be partially or fully overwritten (corrupted) by another CPU trying to issue commands on the same function. There is hard evidence that this can lead to DMB token values being used as DMB IOVAs, leading to PEC 2 PCI events indicating invalid DMA. But this is only one of the failure modes imaginable. In theory even completely losing one command and executing another one twice and then trying to interpret the outputs as if the command we intended to execute was actually executed and not the other one is also possible. Frankly, I don't feel confident about providing an exhaustive list of possible consequences.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-39726

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-39726 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-39726

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-39726.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-39726, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-39726, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-39726 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-39726 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-39726 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-39726 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-39726: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-58369 – fs2 is a compositional, streaming I/O library for Scala. Versions 3.12.2 and lower and 3.13.0-M1 through 3.13.0-M6 is vulnerable to denial of servi...
  • CVE-2025-58367 – DeepDiff is a project focused on Deep Difference and search of any Python data. Versions 5.0.0 through 8.6.0 are vulnerable to class pollution via ...
  • CVE-2025-58366 – Onyxia is a data science environment for kubernetes. In versions 4.6.0 through 4.8.0, Onyxia-API leaked the credentials of private helm repositorie...
  • CVE-2025-57807 – ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. ImageMagick versions lower than 14.8.2 include inse...
  • CVE-2025-10027 – A vulnerability was determined in itsourcecode POS Point of Sale System 1.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /inve...