Loading vulnerabilities…
Loading vulnerabilities…
CVE-2026-23103
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
This record: live connection— last retrieved: 24 September 2026 at 05:14.
Taken directly from NVD, CISA or the vendor — sometimes in English, unchanged from the source.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Attack vector
LOCAL
Privileges required
LOW
User interaction
NONE
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High
Probability of exploitation within 30 days
0.1%
Percentile
2e
Source: FIRST.org, updated on 23 September 2026.
Limit access to the interactive shell of the additional GNU/Linux subssytem to trusted personnel only.
Our own interpretation and context for the source data above.
IACS Radar assessment
Our own interpretation and context for this vulnerability — not an official source.
IACS Radar priority score
Based on CVSS 7.8, EPSS 0.1%, industrial relevance 55/100.
Combines CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, industrial relevance and exposure relevance — a complement to, not a replacement for, the individual scores below and above.
Conditions for exploitation
Operational impact & energy relevance
Possible loss of visibility of or control over the process upon successful exploitation.
Assessed as relevant to the energy sector based on: Vermeld in een officiële CISA ICS Advisory, wat directe relevantie voor industriële besturingssystemen bevestigt. Vendor "Siemens" is a known supplier of equipment for the energy sector.
Recommended defensive measures
Industrial relevance score
Classification is provisional; manual verification by an OT security analyst is recommended.
Classified by IACS Radar-analysepijplijn (geautomatiseerd) on 24 September 2026.
IEC 62443 mapping
Automatic IACS Radar assessment based on the reported CWE weakness classification; not an official certification statement.