CVE-2026-23310 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-23310
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-2026-23310 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Published on: 25 Mar 2026, 11:16 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-23310 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-23310: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf/bonding: reject vlan+srcmac xmit_hash_policy change when XDP is loaded bond_option_mode_set() already rejects mode changes that would make a loaded XDP program incompatible via bond_xdp_check(). However, bond_option_xmit_hash_policy_set() has no such guard. For 802.3ad and balance-xor modes, bond_xdp_check() returns false when xmit_hash_policy is vlan+srcmac, because the 802.1q payload is usually absent due to hardware offload. This means a user can: 1. Attach a native XDP program to a bond in 802.3ad/balance-xor mode with a compatible xmit_hash_policy (e.g. layer2+3). 2. Change xmit_hash_policy to vlan+srcmac while XDP remains loaded. This leaves bond->xdp_prog set but bond_xdp_check() now returning false for the same device. When the bond is later destroyed, dev_xdp_uninstall() calls bond_xdp_set(dev, NULL, NULL) to remove the program, which hits the bond_xdp_check() guard and returns -EOPNOTSUPP, triggering: WARN_ON(dev_xdp_install(dev, mode, bpf_op, NULL, 0, NULL)) Fix this by rejecting xmit_hash_policy changes to vlan+srcmac when an XDP program is loaded on a bond in 802.3ad or balance-xor mode. commit 39a0876d595b ("net, bonding: Disallow vlan+srcmac with XDP") introduced bond_xdp_check() which returns false for 802.3ad/balance-xor modes when xmit_hash_policy is vlan+srcmac. The check was wired into bond_xdp_set() to reject XDP attachment with an incompatible policy, but the symmetric path -- preventing xmit_hash_policy from being changed to an incompatible value after XDP is already loaded -- was left unguarded in bond_option_xmit_hash_policy_set(). Note: commit 094ee6017ea0 ("bonding: check xdp prog when set bond mode") later added a similar guard to bond_option_mode_set(), but bond_option_xmit_hash_policy_set() remained unprotected.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-23310

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-23310 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-2026-23310

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-23310.

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-2026-23310, 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-2026-23310, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-23310 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-23310 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-23310 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-23310 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-23310: 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-2026-40688 – A out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0 through 8.0.3, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.11 may allow...
  • CVE-2026-39399 – NuGet Gallery is a package repository that powers nuget.org. A security vulnerability exists in the NuGetGallery backend job’s handling of .nuspec ...
  • CVE-2026-39387 – BoidCMS is an open-source, PHP-based flat-file CMS for building simple websites and blogs, using JSON as its database. Versions prior to 2.1.3 are ...
  • CVE-2026-35589 – nanobot is a personal AI assistant. Versions prior to 0.1.5 contain a Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) vulnerability exists in the bridge's W...
  • CVE-2026-35034 – Jellyfin is an open source self hosted media server. Versions prior to 10.11.7 contain a denial of service vulnerability in the SyncPlay group crea...