CVE-2026-23467 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-23467
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-2026-23467 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕐 07 Apr 2026, 13:20 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 03 Apr 2026, 16:16 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 3 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-23467 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-23467: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/dmc: Fix an unlikely NULL pointer deference at probe intel_dmc_update_dc6_allowed_count() oopses when DMC hasn't been initialized, and dmc is thus NULL. That would be the case when the call path is intel_power_domains_init_hw() -> {skl,bxt,icl}_display_core_init() -> gen9_set_dc_state() -> intel_dmc_update_dc6_allowed_count(), as intel_power_domains_init_hw() is called *before* intel_dmc_init(). However, gen9_set_dc_state() calls intel_dmc_update_dc6_allowed_count() conditionally, depending on the current and target DC states. At probe, the target is disabled, but if DC6 is enabled, the function is called, and an oops follows. Apparently it's quite unlikely that DC6 is enabled at probe, as we haven't seen this failure mode before. It is also strange to have DC6 enabled at boot, since that would require the DMC firmware (loaded by BIOS); the BIOS loading the DMC firmware and the driver stopping / reprogramming the firmware is a poorly specified sequence and as such unlikely an intentional BIOS behaviour. It's more likely that BIOS is leaving an unintentionally enabled DC6 HW state behind (without actually loading the required DMC firmware for this). The tracking of the DC6 allowed counter only works if starting / stopping the counter depends on the _SW_ DC6 state vs. the current _HW_ DC6 state (since stopping the counter requires the DC5 counter captured when the counter was started). Thus, using the HW DC6 state is incorrect and it also leads to the above oops. Fix both issues by using the SW DC6 state for the tracking. This is v2 of the fix originally sent by Jani, updated based on the first Link: discussion below. (cherry picked from commit 2344b93af8eb5da5d496b4e0529d35f0f559eaf0)

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-23467

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-23467 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-2026-23467

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-23467.

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-2026-23467, 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-2026-23467, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-23467 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-23467 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-23467 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-23467 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-23467: 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-2026-6494 – A flaw was found in the AAP MCP server. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit a log injection vulnerability by sending specially crafted i...
  • CVE-2026-6439 – The VideoZen plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in versions up to and including 1.0.1. This is due to insufficient i...
  • CVE-2026-23778 – Dell PowerProtect Data Domain with Data Domain Operating System (DD OS) of Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.5, LTS2025 release version 8....
  • CVE-2026-23775 – Dell PowerProtect Data Domain appliances with Data Domain Operating System (DD OS) of Feature Release versions 8.0 through 8.5, LTS2025 release ver...
  • CVE-2025-36568 – Dell PowerProtect Data Domain BoostFS for client of Feature Release versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.5, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.20,...