Skip to main content
No exploitation reported

CVE-2026-98441

net/sched: act_ct: avoid modifying shared unconfirmed ct entry

No exploitation reported by the sources we read.

  • Published2026-10-18

Am I affected?

With a domain, we read the version its public headers and pages expose. A distribution build can carry the fix under an older number.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: act_ct: avoid modifying shared unconfirmed ct entry In a case where skb with an unconfirmed ct entry gets cloned, we may end up processing both again but with different sets of extensions. The series of events: 1. The first clone wants to commit and runs the helpers wiring up the extension pointer into the expectation list. 2. Then it looses the confirmation keeping the entry unconfirmed. 3. Second clone now wants to commit labels or run NAT and adds the new extension for that breaking the pointer in the expectation list causing UAF on the destruction path later. While this is possible to trigger, there should be no practical network pipeline where we need to process both clones without modifications in the same zone. So, let's just reset the entry in case for some reason we got an skb with a shared one. This doesn't affect any known use cases, but avoids any potential problems with sharing and modification of the unconfirmed ct entry. Unlike openvswitch module, act_ct allows for NAT without commit. Changing that would be a uAPI break. So, act_ct needs to reset on NAT regardless of the commit flag to avoid reallocation of the extension space. This, however, doesn't really change the picture for sensible networking cases as there should be no need to run the same packet twice (before and after the clone) through conntrack without packet header or zone changes and without commit. The fixes tag points to the introduction of helpers, since that's the main UAF trigger for the sharing.

Timeline

dates in UTC
  1. 2026-10-1816:16CVE publishedNVD

Observed activity

isMalicious corpus · updated 2026-10-24 15:37 UTC
Indicators tagged with this CVE, per day0 indicators over 7 days
Block these indicators
  • Firewall list (EDL, text): https://api.ismalicious.com/edl/cve/CVE-2026-98441?format=txt
  • CSV export: https://api.ismalicious.com/edl/cve/CVE-2026-98441?format=csv
  • TAXII collection of exploited CVEs
  • The EDL and CSV take an API key on the Pro plan.

Versions per branch

Distribution builds and vendor advisories

Packages from OSV.dev and products from the vendors' CSAF advisories.

version not verifiedVersions not verified: read as OSV.dev and the vendors publish them, not checked against each vendor's release list.

Vendor advisories

  • CVE-2026-98441 Red Hat Product Security186 known affected

    kernel: net/sched: act_ct: avoid modifying shared unconfirmed ct entry

    kernel as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · kernel-64k as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · kernel-64k-core as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · +183 more

Full record on NVD

Fix

  1. No fix available, says the vendor Red Hat Product Security CVE-2026-98441 · 186 productsFix deferred

Detection

Nuclei template
none so far
ProjectDiscovery
Exploit-DB
no entry
Exploit-DB
Proof-of-concept repositories
none listed
PoC-in-GitHub

Sources

  • NVDCVE recordread 2026-10-24
  • CNACVSS 3.17.8read 2026-10-24
  • FIRST EPSSEPSS score0.2 %2026-10-23

Technical details

CVSS v3 Vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Published
2026-10-18
Last Modified
2026-10-24
NVD status
Received

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2026-98441?

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: act_ct: avoid modifying shared unconfirmed ct entry In a case where skb with an unconfirmed ct entry gets cloned, we may end up processing both again but with different sets of extensions. The series of events: 1. The first clone wants to commit and runs the helpers wiring up the extension pointer into the expectation list. 2. Then it looses the confirmation keeping the entry unconfirmed. 3. Second clone now wants to commit labels or run NAT and adds the new extension for that breaking the pointer in the expectation list causing UAF on the destruction path later. While this is possible to trigger, there should be no practical network pipeline where we need to process both clones without modifications in the same zone. So, let's just reset the entry in case for some reason we got an skb with a shared one. This doesn't affect any known use cases, but avoids any potential problems with sharing and modification of the unconfirmed ct entry. Unlike openvswitch module, act_ct allows for NAT without commit. Changing that would be a uAPI break. So, act_ct needs to reset on NAT regardless of the commit flag to avoid reallocation of the extension space. This, however, doesn't really change the picture for sensible networking cases as there should be no need to run the same packet twice (before and after the clone) through conntrack without packet header or zone changes and without commit. The fixes tag points to the introduction of helpers, since that's the main UAF trigger for the sharing.

Is CVE-2026-98441 actively exploited?

Active exploitation of CVE-2026-98441 has not been confirmed. Its EPSS score was 0.2% on 2026-10-23, the estimated probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-98441?

CVE-2026-98441 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.8 (HIGH severity), with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H.

Running Linux kernel? Hear about its next vulnerability

Surveillance reads the versions in your stack — a domain, a lockfile or a list — checks each CVE against the ranges its sources publish, and alerts you when one you run is exploited or enters CISA KEV. A version it cannot read stays « version not verified ».

Get alerts for this productCISA KEV additions, October 2026Search CVEs

No credit card required · No monthly cap on website lookups · 250 API requests/month

Go further

Related vulnerabilities

Same product first, then the same vendor advisory and the same publication week.

Back to CVE Database