CVE-2026-80789 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-80789
Vulnerability Scoring

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-2026-80789 Details

Status: Received on 04 Sep 2026, 16:18 UTC

Published on: 04 Sep 2026, 16:18 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-80789 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-80789: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvmet-tcp: bound SGL data length before allocating command buffers nvmet_tcp_map_data() reads the host-controlled 32-bit sgl->length and, for the in-capsule offset descriptor (type 0x01), checks it against port->inline_data_size before use. Any other SGL descriptor type -- including the non-inline transport SGL data-block descriptor (type (NVME_TRANSPORT_SGL_DATA_DESC << 4) | NVME_SGL_FMT_TRANSPORT_A, the type a real host uses for out-of-capsule writes) skips that check entirely and falls straight through to: cmd->req.sg = sgl_alloc(len, GFP_KERNEL, &cmd->req.sg_cnt); with len taken directly from the wire, unbounded up to 4 GiB. nvmet_req_init() only parses the command and never inspects sgl->length, and nvmet_check_transfer_len() -- the only other place transfer_len is validated -- runs later, from req->execute(), after the allocation has already happened. For a write command the target responds with an R2T and parks the command waiting for the host to send the data; if the host (or an unauthenticated peer that simply never follows up) never does, the sgl_alloc() buffer stays resident for the life of the command. NVMe/TCP has no mandatory authentication in the default configuration, so any peer able to reach the target portal and complete a Fabrics connect can drive this with a single crafted command, repeatable across queues and connections for amplification. This is unbounded kernel memory allocation triggered by a remote, effectively unauthenticated peer. Validate len against the same NVMET_TCP_MAXH2CDATA ceiling this file already uses to bound per-PDU H2C data, for every SGL descriptor type, before doing any allocation. This closes the gap for the non-inline descriptor while leaving the existing, tighter inline_data_size check in place for the in-capsule case. Runtime-verified on a v6.19 KASAN stand: with this bound in place, a crafted write command carrying an oversized non-inline SGL length is rejected before sgl_alloc() runs, where the same request previously drove an unbounded ~256 MiB kernel allocation (up to 4 GiB) that stayed resident pending an R2T the host never satisfies.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-80789

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-80789 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-2026-80789

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-80789.

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-2026-80789, 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-2026-80789, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2026-80789 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2026-80789 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2026-80789 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-80789 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-80789: 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-2026-87919 – The Product XML Feed Manager for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 3.1.1 does not restrict which object method its product shortcode may call, n...
CVE-2026-87918 – The WPBot WordPress plugin before 8.5.7 does not perform any authorization or nonce check on several AJAX actions that relay prompts to its config...
CVE-2026-87916 – The WPBot WordPress plugin before 8.6.0 does not perform any capability or nonce check on the AJAX action that lists stored chat sessions, allowin...
CVE-2026-87894 – The Rox Appointment Booking WordPress plugin before 1.2.3 does not perform any authorization check on the endpoint that returns a booking's confir...
CVE-2026-87892 – The Rox Appointment Booking WordPress plugin before 1.2.0 does not verify the order total or the selected payment method against its own server-si...