CVE-2026-63996

HIGHCVSS 7.8/10EPSS 0.13%

Last modified

CVE-2026-63996 is a high-severity vulnerability rated 7.8/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes. Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted, so let's protect the kernel. The existing check protects from short replies. We need to protect from long ones, too. EPSS estimates a 0.13% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes. Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted, so let's protect the kernel. The existing check protects from short replies. We need to protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation or short-reply handling: - cmis_cdb_validate_password() - cmis_cdb_module_features_get() - cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get() so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong... Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len. Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack), but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard, so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like defensive programming.

Metrics

EPSS Probability
0.13%

2.2th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersionsUpdate
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.11, < 6.12.93—
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.18.35—
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.19, < 7.0.12—
LinuxLinux Kernel7.1Rc1

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Modified

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-63996?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes. Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted, so let's protect the kernel. The existing check protects from short replies. We need to protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation or short-reply handling: - cmis_cdb_validate_password() - cmis_cdb_module_features_get() - cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get() so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong... Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len. Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack), but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard, so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like defensive programming.
How severe is CVE-2026-63996?
CVE-2026-63996 has a CVSS score of 7.8/10 (HIGH severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.13% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2026-63996?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

How Strix Helps

Related CVEs from 2026

Are you affected by CVE-2026-63996?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST