Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Linux Kernel Missing Initialization of a Variable Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2026-10-28Metasploit moduleCVE-2026-46300CWE-456

Exploited since 2026-10-28. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
7.8
EPSS
16.1% Top 3%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts
Published
2026-05-23
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: skbuff: preserve shared-frag marker during coalescing skb_try_coalesce() can attach paged frags from @from to @to. If @from has SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG set, the… More

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: skbuff: preserve shared-frag marker during coalescing skb_try_coalesce() can attach paged frags from @from to @to. If @from has SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG set, the resulting @to skb can contain the same externally-owned or page-cache-backed frags, but the shared-frag marker is currently lost. That breaks the invariant relied on by later in-place writers. In particular, ESP input checks skb_has_shared_frag() before deciding whether an uncloned nonlinear skb can skip skb_cow_data(). If TCP receive coalescing has moved shared frags into an unmarked skb, ESP can see skb_has_shared_frag() as false and decrypt in place over page-cache backed frags. Propagate SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG when skb_try_coalesce() transfers paged frags. The tailroom copy path does not need the marker because it copies bytes into @to's linear data rather than transferring frag descriptors.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-46300: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 7.8 / 10

Exploitable with local access, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Needs local accessAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker needs local access, or must trick a user into opening something on the machine.
    Local
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

2 found
1 Metasploit1 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-05-14
    Metasploit module published
    Fragnesia LPE (CVE-2026-46300)
  2. 2026-05-23
    CVE published
    CVE List
  3. 2026-05-29
    Exploit published on Exploit-DB
    Linux Kernel - Local Privilege Escalation
  4. 2026-10-28
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.