Linux: Missing Authorization
CVE-2026-46054 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.1 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions bc6c380c1159de52a252ed11f19a42c47f60a735, 8bacd09f12c27710228562e4d13163e58c5f4a45, d844702198395d3f80222777030f69db6be6b709 as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.12% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Linux to bc6c380c1159de52a252ed11f19a42c47f60a735 or 8bacd09f12c27710228562e4d13163e58c5f4a45 or d844702198395d3f80222777030f69db6be6b709 or cd0e707a927a70cdfd8bc5a512a9719a87f5ed51, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Linux Kernel to 7.0.4 or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | 2f502839e85ab265f03f25f30d6463154aee5473 up to, but not including, bc6c380c1159de52a252ed11f19a42c47f60a735; 2f502839e85ab265f03f25f30d6463154aee5473 up to, but not including, 8bacd09f12c27710228562e4d13163e58c5f4a45; 2f502839e85ab265f03f25f30d6463154aee5473 up to, but not including, d844702198395d3f80222777030f69db6be6b709; 2f502839e85ab265f03f25f30d6463154aee5473 up to, but not including, cd0e707a927a70cdfd8bc5a512a9719a87f5ed51; 2f502839e85ab265f03f25f30d6463154aee5473 up to, but not including, 82544d36b1729153c8aeb179e84750f0c085d3b1; 4.19 | bc6c380c1159de52a252ed11f19a42c47f60a735, 8bacd09f12c27710228562e4d13163e58c5f4a45, d844702198395d3f80222777030f69db6be6b709, cd0e707a927a70cdfd8bc5a512a9719a87f5ed51, 82544d36b1729153c8aeb179e84750f0c085d3b1 |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-On | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-On | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Telecommunications Update Service | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Update Services for SAP Solutions | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Update Services for SAP Solutions | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update Support | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 4.19 up to, but not including, 7.0.4 | 7.0.4 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.1 | High | CNA |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.0 | High | CNA |
Official description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: selinux: fix overlayfs mmap() and mprotect() access checks The existing SELinux security model for overlayfs is to allow access if the current task is able to access the top level file (the "user" file) and the mounter's credentials are sufficient to access the lower level file (the "backing" file). Unfortunately, the current code does not properly enforce these access controls for both mmap() and mprotect() operations on overlayfs filesystems. This patch makes use of the newly created security_mmap_backing_file() LSM hook to provide the missing backing file enforcement for mmap() operations, and leverages the backing file API and new LSM blob to provide the necessary information to properly enforce the mprotect() access controls.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other references
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/8bacd09f12c27710228562e4d13163e58c5f4a45
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/bc6c380c1159de52a252ed11f19a42c47f60a735
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/d844702198395d3f80222777030f69db6be6b709
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:25191
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27811
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27812
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:30848
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:51746
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:52649
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:52667
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:52764
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59091
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59473
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67721
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67723
Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
- 8.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.