CVE-20XX-?
agent?

CVE-2026-31607

9.8 CRITICAL 0.3% exploit odds Fix listed Memory safety OS & kernel

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: usbip: validate number_of_packets in usbip_pack_ret_submit() When a USB/IP client receives a RET_SUBMIT response, usbip_pack_ret_submit() unconditionally overwrites urb->number_of_packets from the network PDU. This value is subsequently used as the loop bound in usbip_recv_iso() and usbip_pad_iso() to iterate over urb->iso_frame_desc[], a flexible array whose size was fixed at URB allocation time based on the *original* number_of_packets from the CMD_SUBMIT. A malicious USB/IP server can set number_of_packets in the response to a value larger than what was originally submitted, causing a heap out-of-bounds write when usbip_recv_iso() writes to urb->iso_frame_desc[i] beyond the allocated region. KASAN confirmed this with kernel 7.0.0-rc5: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in usbip_recv_iso+0x46a/0x640 Write of size 4 at addr ffff888106351d40 by task vhci_rx/69 The buggy address is located 0 bytes to the right of allocated 320-byte region [ffff888106351c00, ffff888106351d40) The server side (stub_rx.c) and gadget side (vudc_rx.c) already validate number_of_packets in the CMD_SUBMIT path since commits c6688ef9f297 ("usbip: fix stub_rx: harden CMD_SUBMIT path to handle malicious input") and b78d830f0049 ("usbip: fix vudc_rx: harden CMD_SUBMIT path to handle malicious input"). The server side validates against USBIP_MAX_ISO_PACKETS because no URB exists yet at that point. On the client side we have the original URB, so we can use the tighter bound: the response must not exceed the original number_of_packets. This mirrors the existing validation of actual_length against transfer_buffer_length in usbip_recv_xbuff(), which checks the response value against the original allocation size. Kelvin Mbogo's series ("usb: usbip: fix integer overflow in usbip_recv_iso()", v2) hardens the receive-side functions themselves; this patch complements that work by catching the bad value at its source -- in usbip_pack_ret_submit() before the overwrite -- and using the tighter per-URB allocation bound rather than the global USBIP_MAX_ISO_PACKETS limit. Fix this by checking rpdu->number_of_packets against urb->number_of_packets in usbip_pack_ret_submit() before the overwrite. On violation, clamp to zero so that usbip_recv_iso() and usbip_pad_iso() safely return early.

At a glance

Exploitability
Can be exploited over the network without logging in. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.
Exploit odds
0.3% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
Fix
A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

  1. PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
  2. Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

Details

Published
Last modified
Exploit probability
0.3% · EPSS, next 30 days
Weakness
CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds write
Record status
Modified

Affected

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 9.8

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High
Raw vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-31607.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-31607. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

· More options · Status badge

Meme: I wake up, CVE-2026-31607
Download Square Reddit

Fix and advisories

References

NVD record · CVE.org record