CVE 8.8 HIGH

smb: client: validate the whole DACL before rewriting it in cifsacl_CVE-2026-31709

8.8 / 10
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

smb: client: validate the whole DACL before rewriting it in cifsacl

build_sec_desc() and id_mode_to_cifs_acl() derive a DACL pointer from a
server-supplied dacloffset and then use the incoming ACL to rebuild the
chmod/chown security descriptor.

The original fix only checked that the struct smb_acl header fits before
reading dacl_ptr->size or dacl_ptr->num_aces. That avoids the immediate
header-field OOB read, but the rewrite helpers still walk ACEs based on
pdacl->num_aces with no structural validation of the incoming DACL body.

A malicious server can return a truncated DACL that still contains a
header, claims one or more ACEs, and then drive
replace_sids_and_copy_aces() or set_chmod_dacl() past the validated
extent while they compare or copy attacker-controlled ACEs.

Factor the DACL structural checks into validate_dacl(), extend them to
validate each ACE against the DACL bounds, and use the shared validator
before the chmod/chown rebuild paths. parse_dacl() reuses the same
validator so the read-side parser and write-side rewrite paths agree on
what constitutes a well-formed incoming DACL.

AI Analysis

A vulnerability in the Linux kernel's SMB client allows a malicious server to return a truncated DACL, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data modification.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-31709
Source Linux
Published May 1, 2026 at 13:56
Modified May 3, 2026 at 05:45

Affected Product

Vendor Linux
Product Linux
Version bc3e9dd9d104ca1b75644eab87b38ce8a924aef4
Affected Versions Linux Linux bc3e9dd9d104ca1b75644eab87b38ce8a924aef4
Linux Linux bc3e9dd9d104ca1b75644eab87b38ce8a924aef4
Linux Linux 5.12

AI Assessment

AI Score 8.8 / 10
AI Severity High
Vendor Linux Foundation
Product Linux Kernel
Version 5.12, bc3e9dd9d104ca1b75644eab87b38ce8a924aef4

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.