CVE-2026-43244 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-43244
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-2026-43244 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Published on: 06 May 2026, 12:16 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-43244 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-43244: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kcm: fix zero-frag skb in frag_list on partial sendmsg error Syzkaller reported a warning in kcm_write_msgs() when processing a message with a zero-fragment skb in the frag_list. When kcm_sendmsg() fills MAX_SKB_FRAGS fragments in the current skb, it allocates a new skb (tskb) and links it into the frag_list before copying data. If the copy subsequently fails (e.g. -EFAULT from user memory), tskb remains in the frag_list with zero fragments: head skb (msg being assembled, NOT yet in sk_write_queue) +-----------+ | frags[17] | (MAX_SKB_FRAGS, all filled with data) | frag_list-+--> tskb +-----------+ +----------+ | frags[0] | (empty! copy failed before filling) +----------+ For SOCK_SEQPACKET with partial data already copied, the error path saves this message via partial_message for later completion. For SOCK_SEQPACKET, sock_write_iter() automatically sets MSG_EOR, so a subsequent zero-length write(fd, NULL, 0) completes the message and queues it to sk_write_queue. kcm_write_msgs() then walks the frag_list and hits: WARN_ON(!skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags) TCP has a similar pattern where skbs are enqueued before data copy and cleaned up on failure via tcp_remove_empty_skb(). KCM was missing the equivalent cleanup. Fix this by tracking the predecessor skb (frag_prev) when allocating a new frag_list entry. On error, if the tail skb has zero frags, use frag_prev to unlink and free it in O(1) without walking the singly-linked frag_list. frag_prev is safe to dereference because the entire message chain is only held locally (or in kcm->seq_skb) and is not added to sk_write_queue until MSG_EOR, so the send path cannot free it underneath us. Also change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE to avoid flooding the log if the condition is somehow hit repeatedly. There are currently no KCM selftests in the kernel tree; a simple reproducer is available at [1]. [1] https://gist.github.com/mrpre/a94d431c757e8d6f168f4dd1a3749daa

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-43244

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-43244 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-2026-43244

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-43244.

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-2026-43244, 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-2026-43244, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-43244 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-43244 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-43244 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-43244 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-43244: 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-2026-6956 – ATutor is vulnerable to Reflected XSS in /install/install.php endpoint. An attacker can provide a specially crafted URL that, when opened, results ...
  • CVE-2026-6909 – ATutor is vulnerable to Reflected XSS in /install/upgrade.php endpoint. An attacker can provide a specially crafted URL that, when opened, results ...
  • CVE-2026-41951 – Path traversal vulnerability exists in GROWI v7.5.0 and earlier, which may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary EJS templates on the server when ...
  • CVE-2026-40636 – Dell ECS versions 3.8.1.0 through 3.8.1.7 and Dell ObjectScale versions prior to 4.3.0.0, contains a use of hard-coded credentials vulnerability. A...
  • CVE-2026-35157 – Dell ECS versions 3.8.1.0 through 3.8.1.7 and Dell ObjectScale versions prior to 4.3.0.0, contains an improper neutralization of formula elements i...