CVE-2026-99285 linux linux
linux linux: no CVSS score yet. EPSS 0.2% estimated probability of exploitation activity in the next 30 days.
On this page
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: nft_byteorder: remove multi-register support
64bit byteorder conversion is broken when several registers need to be
converted because the source register array advances in steps for 4 bytes
instead of 8:
for (i = ...
src64 = nft_reg_load64(&src[i]);
~~~~~ u32 *src
nft_reg_store64(&dst64[i],
Remove the multi-register support, it has other issues as well:
Pablo points out that commit
caf3ef7468f7 ("netfilter: nf_tables: prevent OOB access in nft_byteorder_eval")
alters semantics: before the loop operated on registers, i.e.
for ( ... )
dst32[i] = htons((u16)src32[i])
.. but after the patch it will operate on bytes, which makes this
useless to convert e.g. concatenations, which store each compound
in its own register.
Multi-convert of u32 has one theoretical application:
ct mark . meta mark . tcp dport @intervalset
Because ct mark and meta mark are host byte order, use with
intervals has to convert the byteorder for ct/meta mark value
to network byte order (bigendian).
nftables emits this:
[ meta load mark => reg 1 ]
[ byteorder reg 1 = hton(reg 1, 4, 4) ]
[ ct load mark => reg 9 ]
[ byteorder reg 9 = hton(reg 9, 4, 4) ]
...
I.e. two separate calls. Theoretically it could be changed to do:
[ meta load mark => reg 1 ]
[ ct load mark => reg 9 ]
[ byteorder reg 1 = htonl(reg 1, 4, 8) ]
...
But then all it would take to change the set to
meta mark . tcp dport . ct mark
... and we'd be back to two "byteorder" calls. IOW, support to
convert a range of registers is both dysfunctional and dubious.
Simplify this: remove the feature.
Pablo Neira Ayuso points out that nftables before 1.1.0 can generate
incorrect byteorder conversions, see 9fe58952c45a,
"evaluate: skip byteorder conversion for selector smaller than 2 bytes"
in nftables.git). Affected rulesets fail to load with this change and
old userspace due to 'len != size' check.
- EPSS
- 0.2% estimated probability of exploitation activity in the next 30 days; 6th percentile. Scored 2026-11-13. A forecast for this CVE across the internet, not for your own systems.
- Published
- Assigned by
- Linux (CNA)
- NVD analysis
- Awaiting analysis
- Record from
- the NVD, synced
Ask an AI about this CVE
Show the prompt
Explain CVE-2026-99285 for an engineer deciding whether to act. Use https://cve.bz/api/public/cves/CVE-2026-99285?via=ask-ai-copy and https://cve.bz/cve/CVE-2026-99285?via=ask-ai-copy as the source of truth: what is affected and which versions fix it, whether it is in CISA KEV, public exploits, and its EPSS (an internet-wide 30-day estimate of exploitation activity, not a forecast for my systems). If they give no fixed versions, use the CVE record https://cveawg.mitre.org/api/cve/CVE-2026-99285 or the vendor advisory, not third-party mirrors. Tell me how to check whether I am affected and how to verify a fix. Cite the sources and say where they are uncertain.Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this CVE's id and public links.
Affected
Versions
From the CNA's record in the CVE List.
| Product | Affected |
|---|---|
| Linux | from 4.19.307 before 4.20 |
| Linux | from 5.4.269 before 5.5 |
| Linux | from 5.10.210 before 5.11 |
| Linux | from 5.15.140 before 5.16 |
| Linux | from 6.1.64 before 6.2 |
| Linux | from 6.5.13 before 6.6 |
| Linux | from 6.6.3 before 6.7 |
| Linux | 6.7 and later |
Fixed in
| Product | Release line | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| Linux | 6.12 | 6.12.115 |
| Linux | 6.18 | 6.18.59 |
| Linux | later releases | 7.1 |
Fix and patched versions
- Linux Linux: fixed in 6.12.115
- Linux Linux: fixed in 6.18.59
- Linux Linux: fixed in 7.1
- Debian, Alpaquita: fixed package versions per release
Linux distributions
| Distribution | Release | Package | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian | 12 | linux | no fix listed | DEBIAN-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Debian | 12 | linux-6.12 | 6.12.115-2~deb12u1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Debian | 13 | linux | 6.12.115-1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Debian | 14 | linux | 7.1.3-1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 16.04:LTS | linux-hwe-edge | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 18.04:LTS | linux-gcp, linux-hwe, linux-oem and 12 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 20.04:LTS | linux-gke, linux-gkeop, linux-riscv and 26 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 22.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 57 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 24.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 50 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 26.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 12 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | 26.10 | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 6 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | Nvidia-BlueField:22.04:LTS, Nvidia-BlueField:24.04:LTS | linux-bluefield | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | Pro:14.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-azure and 1 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | Pro:16.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 5 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | Pro:18.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-kvm and 10 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Ubuntu | Pro:20.04:LTS | linux, linux-aws, linux-gcp and 19 more | no fix listed | UBUNTU-CVE-2026-99285 |
| 4 more for Ubuntu in the JSON and on Ubuntu's page. | ||||
| Alpaquita | 23 | linux-lts | no fix listed | BELL-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Alpaquita | 25 | linux-lts | 6.12.115-r0 | BELL-CVE-2026-99285 |
| Alpaquita | stream | linux-lts | 6.18.62-r0 | BELL-CVE-2026-99285 |
From the distributions' data via OSV.dev: the Debian Security Tracker; Ubuntu Security Notices © Canonical Ltd., CC BY-SA 4.0; BellSoft's OSV database, MIT. Modified: reformatted and linked to CVE records. Credits. On the distributions' own pages: Debian · Ubuntu · Alpaquita.