遠端 Debian 12 主機已安裝的套件會受到 dla-4788 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian LTS 公告 DLA-4788-1 debian-lts@lists.debian.org https://www.debian.org/lts/security/Ben Hutchings 2026 年 9 月 19 日 https://wiki.debian.org/LTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------

    套件 ： linux-6.12 版本 ： 6.12.107-1~deb12u1 CVE ID ： CVE-2025-38525 CVE-2025-40054 CVE-2025-40074 CVE-2026-43197 CVE-2026-53092 CVE-2026-64017 CVE-2026-64216 CVE-2026-64581 CVE-2026-64586 CVE-2026-68082 CVE-2026-68118 CVE-2026-68132 CVE-2026-68138 CVE-2026-68159 CVE-2026-68166 CVE-2026-68169 CVE-2026-68198 CVE-2026-68253 CVE-2026-68254 CVE-2026-68264 CVE-2026-68266 CVE-2026-68267 CVE-2026-68273 CVE-2026-68276 CVE-2026-68322 CVE-2026-68367 CVE-2026-68431 CVE-2026-68451 CVE-2026-68452 CVE-2026-68480 CVE-2026-72111 CVE-2026-74440 CVE-2026-74441 CVE-2026-74442 CVE-2026-74443 CVE-2026-74444 CVE-2026-74445 CVE-2026-74446 CVE-2026-74447 CVE-2026-74448 CVE-2026-74450 CVE-2026-74451 CVE-2026-74452 CVE-2026-74453 CVE-2026-74454 CVE-2026-74455 CVE-2026-74456 CVE-2026-74457 CVE-2026-74458 CVE-2026-74459 CVE-2026-74460 CVE-2026-74461 CVE-2026-74463 CVE-2026-74464 CVE-2026-74465 CVE-2026-74467 CVE-2026-74468 CVE-2026-74469 CVE-2026-74470 CVE-2026-74471 CVE-2026-74472 CVE-2026-74473 CVE-2026-74474 CVE-2026-74475 CVE-2026-74476 CVE-2026-74478 CVE-2026-74479 CVE-2026-74480 CVE-2026-74481 CVE-2026-74482 CVE-2026-74483 CVE-2026-74484 CVE-2026-74485 CVE-2026-74487 CVE-2026-74488 CVE-2026-74490 CVE-2026-74492 CVE-2026-74493 CVE-2026-74494 CVE-2026-74495 CVE-2026-74497 CVE-2026-74498 CVE-2026-74499 CVE-2026-74500 CVE-2026-74501 CVE-2026-74502 CVE-2026-74503 CVE-2026-74504 CVE-2026-74505 CVE-2026-74507 CVE-2026-74508 CVE-2026-74509 CVE-2026-74510 CVE-2026-74512 CVE-2026-74514 CVE-2026-74515 CVE-2026-74516 CVE-2026-74517 CVE-2026-74518 CVE-2026-74519 CVE-2026-74522 CVE-2026-74523 CVE-2026-74524 CVE-2026-74525 CVE-2026-74531 CVE-2026-74532 CVE-2026-74535 CVE-2026-74536 CVE-2026-74540 CVE-2026-74541 CVE-2026-74543 CVE-2026-74545 CVE-2026-74546 CVE-2026-74547 CVE-2026-74548 CVE-2026-74549 CVE-2026-74550 CVE-2026-74551 CVE-2026-74552 CVE-2026-74553 CVE-2026-74555 CVE-2026-74556 CVE-2026-74557 CVE-2026-74563 CVE-2026-74564 CVE-2026-74565 CVE-2026-74566 CVE-2026-74567 CVE-2026-74569 CVE-2026-74572 CVE-2026-74574 CVE-2026-74575 CVE-2026-74576 CVE-2026-74577 CVE-2026-74579 CVE-2026-74580 CVE-2026-74581 CVE-2026-74582 CVE-2026-74583 CVE-2026-74585 CVE-2026-74586 CVE-2026-74587 CVE-2026-74588 CVE-2026-74589 CVE-2026-74590 CVE-2026-74592 CVE-2026-74594 CVE-2026-74595 CVE-2026-74597 CVE-2026-74598 CVE-2026-74599 CVE-2026-74601 CVE-2026-74602 CVE-2026-74603 CVE-2026-74604 CVE-2026-74606 CVE-2026-74607 CVE-2026-74608 CVE-2026-74609 CVE-2026-74610 CVE-2026-74612 CVE-2026-74613 CVE-2026-74614 CVE-2026-74615 CVE-2026-74616 CVE-2026-74618 CVE-2026-74619 CVE-2026-74620 CVE-2026-74621 CVE-2026-74622 CVE-2026-74623 CVE-2026-74624 CVE-2026-74625 CVE-2026-74626 CVE-2026-74628 CVE-2026-74630 CVE-2026-74631 CVE-2026-74632 CVE-2026-74634 CVE-2026-74635 CVE-2026-74636 CVE-2026-74637 CVE-2026-74641 CVE-2026-74644 CVE-2026-74646 CVE-2026-74647 CVE-2026-74648 CVE-2026-74649 CVE-2026-74650 CVE-2026-74651 CVE-2026-74653 CVE-2026-74654 CVE-2026-74655 CVE-2026-74656 CVE-2026-74657 CVE-2026-74658 CVE-2026-74659 CVE-2026-74660 CVE-2026-74661 CVE-2026-74662 CVE-2026-74663 CVE-2026-74664 CVE-2026-74665 CVE-2026-74666 CVE-2026-74667 CVE-2026-74668 CVE-2026-74669 CVE-2026-74670 CVE-2026-74671 CVE-2026-74672 CVE-2026-74673 CVE-2026-74675 CVE-2026-74676 CVE-2026-74677 CVE-2026-74678 CVE-2026-74679 CVE-2026-74680 CVE-2026-74682 CVE-2026-74683 CVE-2026-74684 CVE-2026-74685 CVE-2026-74688 CVE-2026-74689 CVE-2026-74691 CVE-2026-74692 CVE-2026-74693 CVE-2026-74694 CVE-2026-74696 CVE-2026-74700 CVE-2026-74701 CVE-2026-74704 CVE-2026-74705 CVE-2026-74710 CVE-2026-74712 CVE-2026-74714 CVE-2026-74717 CVE-2026-74718 CVE-2026-74719 CVE-2026-74720 CVE-2026-74722 CVE-2026-74724 CVE-2026-74725 CVE-2026-74726 CVE-2026-74730 CVE-2026-74732 CVE-2026-74736 CVE-2026-74737 CVE-2026-74739 CVE-2026-74740 CVE-2026-74742 CVE-2026-74743 CVE-2026-74744 CVE-2026-74746 CVE-2026-74748 CVE-2026-80522 CVE-2026-80525 CVE-2026-80526 CVE-2026-80527 CVE-2026-80528 CVE-2026-80529 CVE-2026-80530 CVE-2026-80531 CVE-2026-80532 CVE-2026-80533 CVE-2026-80534 CVE-2026-80535 CVE-2026-80536 CVE-2026-80539 CVE-2026-80540 CVE-2026-80541 CVE-2026-80547 CVE-2026-80548 CVE-2026-80549 CVE-2026-80550 CVE-2026-80551 CVE-2026-80552 CVE-2026-80553 CVE-2026-80554 CVE-2026-80555 CVE-2026-80556 CVE-2026-80557 CVE-2026-80558 CVE-2026-80559 CVE-2026-80560 CVE-2026-80561 CVE-2026-80562 CVE-2026-80563 CVE-2026-80565 CVE-2026-80566 CVE-2026-80567 CVE-2026-80568 CVE-2026-80569 CVE-2026-80570 CVE-2026-80572 CVE-2026-80573 CVE-2026-80574 CVE-2026-80575 CVE-2026-80576 CVE-2026-80577 CVE-2026-80578 CVE-2026-80583 CVE-2026-80584 CVE-2026-80585 CVE-2026-80586 CVE-2026-80587 CVE-2026-80589 CVE-2026-80590 CVE-2026-80678 CVE-2026-80679 CVE-2026-80680 CVE-2026-80681 CVE-2026-80684 CVE-2026-80686 CVE-2026-80689 CVE-2026-80691 CVE-2026-80694 CVE-2026-80695 CVE-2026-80696 CVE-2026-80700 CVE-2026-80702 CVE-2026-80703 CVE-2026-80704 CVE-2026-80706 CVE-2026-80707 CVE-2026-80708 CVE-2026-80709 CVE-2026-80710 CVE-2026-80711 CVE-2026-80714 CVE-2026-80715 CVE-2026-80716 CVE-2026-80717 CVE-2026-80718 CVE-2026-80722 CVE-2026-80723 CVE-2026-80725 CVE-2026-80726 CVE-2026-80727 CVE-2026-80728 CVE-2026-80730 CVE-2026-80731 CVE-2026-80732 CVE-2026-80733 CVE-2026-80736 CVE-2026-80737 CVE-2026-80739 CVE-2026-80742 CVE-2026-80743 CVE-2026-80744 CVE-2026-80749 CVE-2026-80752 CVE-2026-80754 CVE-2026-80756 CVE-2026-80757 CVE-2026-80759 CVE-2026-80763 CVE-2026-80764 CVE-2026-80765 CVE-2026-80767 CVE-2026-80770 CVE-2026-80771 CVE-2026-80772 CVE-2026-80779 CVE-2026-80781 CVE-2026-80782 CVE-2026-80784 CVE-2026-80788 CVE-2026-80789 CVE-2026-80790 CVE-2026-80791 CVE-2026-80792 CVE-2026-80793 CVE-2026-80794 CVE-2026-80795 CVE-2026-80797 CVE-2026-80798 CVE-2026-80799 CVE-2026-80800 CVE-2026-80801 CVE-2026-80802 CVE-2026-80803 CVE-2026-80805 CVE-2026-80808 CVE-2026-80809 CVE-2026-80812 CVE-2026-80814 CVE-2026-80815 CVE-2026-80819 CVE-2026-80820 CVE-2026-80823 CVE-2026-80887 CVE-2026-80888 CVE-2026-80889 CVE-2026-80890 CVE-2026-80891 CVE-2026-80892 CVE-2026-80893 CVE-2026-80894 CVE-2026-80901 CVE-2026-80902 CVE-2026-80903 CVE-2026-80904 CVE-2026-80906 CVE-2026-80907 CVE-2026-80908 CVE-2026-80909 CVE-2026-80910 CVE-2026-80911 CVE-2026-80912 CVE-2026-80913 CVE-2026-80915 CVE-2026-80916 CVE-2026-80917 CVE-2026-80918 Debian 錯誤 ： 1142912 1143545

    在 Linux 核心中發現數個弱點，這些弱點可能會導致特權提升、拒絕服務或資訊洩漏。

    對於 Debian 12 書蟲，這些問題已在 6.12.107-1~deb12u1 版本中修復。此更新還包括來自穩定更新 6.12.102-6.12.107的更多錯誤修復，並添加了 Alcor 讀卡器的驅動程序。

    我們建議您升級 linux-6.12 套件。

    有關 linux-6.12 的詳細安全性狀態，請參閱其安全性追蹤器頁面：
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/linux-6.12

    有關 Debian LTS 安全公告、如何將這些更新套用至您的系統以及常見問題的詳細資訊，請參閱：https://wiki.debian.org/LTSAttachment:signature.ascDescription: PGP 簽章

Tenable 已直接從 Debian 安全公告擷取前置描述區塊。

請注意，Nessus 並未測試這些問題，而是僅依據應用程式自我報告的版本號碼作出判斷。

AlmaLinux 9.6 主機已安裝的套件會受到 TuxCare ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1793100968 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：udf: Avoid double brelse() in udf_rename() syzbot reported a warning like below [1]: VFS: brelse: Trying to free free buffer WARNING:
    CPU: 2 PID: 7301 at fs/buffer.c:1145 __brelse+0x67/0xa0 ... Call Trace: <TASK> invalidate_bh_lru+0x99/0x150 smp_call_function_many_cond+0xe2a/0x10c0 ? generic_remap_file_range_prep+0x50/0x50 ? __brelse+0xa0/0xa0 ? __mutex_lock+0x21c/0x12d0 ? smp_call_on_cpu+0x250/0x250 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0xb/0x60 ? lock_release+0x587/0x810 ?
    __brelse+0xa0/0xa0 ? generic_remap_file_range_prep+0x50/0x50 on_each_cpu_cond_mask+0x3c/0x80 blkdev_flush_mapping+0x13a/0x2f0 blkdev_put_whole+0xd3/0xf0 blkdev_put+0x222/0x760 deactivate_locked_super+0x96/0x160 deactivate_super+0xda/0x100 cleanup_mnt+0x222/0x3d0 task_work_run+0x149/0x240 ? task_work_cancel+0x30/0x30 do_exit+0xb29/0x2a40 ? reacquire_held_locks+0x4a0/0x4a0 ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12a/0x2b0 ? mm_update_next_owner+0x7c0/0x7c0 ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x90/0x90 ? zap_other_threads+0x234/0x2d0 do_group_exit+0xd0/0x2a0
    __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3a/0x50 do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd The cause of the issue is that brelse() is called on both ofibh.sbh and ofibh.ebh by udf_find_entry() when it returns NULL. However, brelse() is called by udf_rename(), too. So, b_count on buffer_head becomes unbalanced. This patch fixes the issue by not calling brelse() by udf_rename() when udf_find_entry() returns NULL. (CVE-2022-50755)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：soc: qcom: qmi_encdec: Restrict string length in decode The QMI TLV value for strings in a lot of qmi element info structures account for null terminated strings with MAX_LEN + 1. If a string is actually MAX_LEN + 1 length, this will cause an out of bounds access when the NULL character is appended in decoding. (CVE-2023-53729)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：can: isotp: check CAN address family in isotp_bind() Add missing check to block non-AF_CAN binds. Syzbot created some code which matched the right sockaddr struct size but used AF_XDP (0x2C) instead of AF_CAN (0x1D) in the address family field:
    bind$xdp(r2, &(0x7f0000000540)={0x2c, 0x0, r4, 0x0, r2}, 0x10) ^^^^ This has no funtional impact but the userspace should be notified about the wrong address family field content. (CVE-2023-54105)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：usb: rndis_host: Secure rndis_query check against int overflow Variables off and len typed as uint32 in rndis_query function are controlled by incoming RNDIS response message thus their value may be manipulated. Setting off to a unexpectetly large value will cause the sum with len and 8 to overflow and pass the implemented validation step. Consequently the response pointer will be referring to a location past the expected buffer boundaries allowing information leakage e.g. via RNDIS_OID_802_3_PERMANENT_ADDRESS OID. (CVE-2023-54110)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：mtd: spi-nor: Fix shift-out-of-bounds in spi_nor_set_erase_type spi_nor_set_erase_type() was used either to set or to mask out an erase type.
    When we used it to mask out an erase type a shift-out-of-bounds was hit: UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c:2237:24 shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int' The setting of the size_{shift, mask} and of the opcode are unnecessary when the erase size is zero, as throughout the code just the erase size is considered to determine whether an erase type is supported or not. Setting the opcode to 0xFF was wrong too as nobody guarantees that 0xFF is an unused opcode. Thus when masking out an erase type, just set the erase size to zero. This will fix the shift-out-of-bounds.
    [ta: refine changes, new commit message, fix compilation error] (CVE-2023-54295)

請注意，Nessus 並未測試這些問題，而是僅依據應用程式自我報告的版本號碼作出判斷。

Rocky Linux 9.6 主機已安裝的套件會受到 TuxCare ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1793100968 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：udf: Avoid double brelse() in udf_rename() syzbot reported a warning like below [1]: VFS: brelse: Trying to free free buffer WARNING:
    CPU: 2 PID: 7301 at fs/buffer.c:1145 __brelse+0x67/0xa0 ... Call Trace: <TASK> invalidate_bh_lru+0x99/0x150 smp_call_function_many_cond+0xe2a/0x10c0 ? generic_remap_file_range_prep+0x50/0x50 ? __brelse+0xa0/0xa0 ? __mutex_lock+0x21c/0x12d0 ? smp_call_on_cpu+0x250/0x250 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0xb/0x60 ? lock_release+0x587/0x810 ?
    __brelse+0xa0/0xa0 ? generic_remap_file_range_prep+0x50/0x50 on_each_cpu_cond_mask+0x3c/0x80 blkdev_flush_mapping+0x13a/0x2f0 blkdev_put_whole+0xd3/0xf0 blkdev_put+0x222/0x760 deactivate_locked_super+0x96/0x160 deactivate_super+0xda/0x100 cleanup_mnt+0x222/0x3d0 task_work_run+0x149/0x240 ? task_work_cancel+0x30/0x30 do_exit+0xb29/0x2a40 ? reacquire_held_locks+0x4a0/0x4a0 ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12a/0x2b0 ? mm_update_next_owner+0x7c0/0x7c0 ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x90/0x90 ? zap_other_threads+0x234/0x2d0 do_group_exit+0xd0/0x2a0
    __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3a/0x50 do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd The cause of the issue is that brelse() is called on both ofibh.sbh and ofibh.ebh by udf_find_entry() when it returns NULL. However, brelse() is called by udf_rename(), too. So, b_count on buffer_head becomes unbalanced. This patch fixes the issue by not calling brelse() by udf_rename() when udf_find_entry() returns NULL. (CVE-2022-50755)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：soc: qcom: qmi_encdec: Restrict string length in decode The QMI TLV value for strings in a lot of qmi element info structures account for null terminated strings with MAX_LEN + 1. If a string is actually MAX_LEN + 1 length, this will cause an out of bounds access when the NULL character is appended in decoding. (CVE-2023-53729)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：can: isotp: check CAN address family in isotp_bind() Add missing check to block non-AF_CAN binds. Syzbot created some code which matched the right sockaddr struct size but used AF_XDP (0x2C) instead of AF_CAN (0x1D) in the address family field:
    bind$xdp(r2, &(0x7f0000000540)={0x2c, 0x0, r4, 0x0, r2}, 0x10) ^^^^ This has no funtional impact but the userspace should be notified about the wrong address family field content. (CVE-2023-54105)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：usb: rndis_host: Secure rndis_query check against int overflow Variables off and len typed as uint32 in rndis_query function are controlled by incoming RNDIS response message thus their value may be manipulated. Setting off to a unexpectetly large value will cause the sum with len and 8 to overflow and pass the implemented validation step. Consequently the response pointer will be referring to a location past the expected buffer boundaries allowing information leakage e.g. via RNDIS_OID_802_3_PERMANENT_ADDRESS OID. (CVE-2023-54110)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：mtd: spi-nor: Fix shift-out-of-bounds in spi_nor_set_erase_type spi_nor_set_erase_type() was used either to set or to mask out an erase type.
    When we used it to mask out an erase type a shift-out-of-bounds was hit: UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c:2237:24 shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int' The setting of the size_{shift, mask} and of the opcode are unnecessary when the erase size is zero, as throughout the code just the erase size is considered to determine whether an erase type is supported or not. Setting the opcode to 0xFF was wrong too as nobody guarantees that 0xFF is an unused opcode. Thus when masking out an erase type, just set the erase size to zero. This will fix the shift-out-of-bounds.
    [ta: refine changes, new commit message, fix compilation error] (CVE-2023-54295)

請注意，Nessus 並未測試這些問題，而是僅依據應用程式自我報告的版本號碼作出判斷。

遠端 Debian 13 主機已安裝的套件會受到 dsa-6466 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

    - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian安全公告 DSA-6466-1 security@debian.org https://www.debian.org/security/Salvatore Bonaccorso 2026 年 8 月 25 日 https://www.debian.org/security/faq
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    套件 ： linux CVE ID ： CVE-2025-38525 CVE-2025-40054 CVE-2026-43197 CVE-2026-53092 CVE-2026-64017 CVE-2026-64586 CVE-2026-68082 CVE-2026-68118 CVE-2026-68132 CVE-2026-68138 CVE-2026-68159 CVE-2026-68166 CVE-2026-68169 CVE-2026-68198 CVE-2026-68253 CVE-2026-68254 CVE-2026-68264 CVE-2026-68266 CVE-2026-68267 CVE-2026-68273 CVE-2026-68276 CVE-2026-68322 CVE-2026-68367 CVE-2026-68431 CVE-2026-68451 CVE-2026-68452 CVE-2026-68480 CVE-2026-72111 CVE-2026-74440 CVE-2026-74441 CVE-2026-74442 CVE-2026-74443 CVE-2026-74444 CVE-2026-74445 CVE-2026-74446 CVE-2026-74447 CVE-2026-74448 CVE-2026-74450 CVE-2026-74451 CVE-2026-74452 CVE-2026-74453 CVE-2026-74454 CVE-2026-74455 CVE-2026-74456 CVE-2026-74457 CVE-2026-74458 CVE-2026-74459 CVE-2026-74460 CVE-2026-74461 CVE-2026-74463 CVE-2026-74464 CVE-2026-74465 CVE-2026-74467 CVE-2026-74468 CVE-2026-74469 CVE-2026-74470 CVE-2026-74471 CVE-2026-74472 CVE-2026-74473 CVE-2026-74474 CVE-2026-74475 CVE-2026-74476 CVE-2026-74478 CVE-2026-74479 CVE-2026-74480 CVE-2026-74481 CVE-2026-74482 CVE-2026-74483 CVE-2026-74484 CVE-2026-74485 CVE-2026-74487 CVE-2026-74488 CVE-2026-74490 CVE-2026-74492 CVE-2026-74493 CVE-2026-74494 CVE-2026-74495 CVE-2026-74497 CVE-2026-74498 CVE-2026-74499 CVE-2026-74500 CVE-2026-74501 CVE-2026-74502 CVE-2026-74503 CVE-2026-74504 CVE-2026-74505 CVE-2026-74507 CVE-2026-74508 CVE-2026-74509 CVE-2026-74510 CVE-2026-74512 CVE-2026-74514 CVE-2026-74515 CVE-2026-74516 CVE-2026-74517 CVE-2026-74518 CVE-2026-74519 CVE-2026-74522 CVE-2026-74523 CVE-2026-74524 CVE-2026-74525 CVE-2026-74531 CVE-2026-74532 CVE-2026-74535 CVE-2026-74536 CVE-2026-74540 CVE-2026-74541 CVE-2026-74543 CVE-2026-74545 CVE-2026-74546 CVE-2026-74547 CVE-2026-74548 CVE-2026-74549 CVE-2026-74550 CVE-2026-74551 CVE-2026-74552 CVE-2026-74553 CVE-2026-74555 CVE-2026-74556 CVE-2026-74557 CVE-2026-74563 CVE-2026-74564 CVE-2026-74565 CVE-2026-74566 CVE-2026-74567 CVE-2026-74569 CVE-2026-74572 CVE-2026-74574 CVE-2026-74575 CVE-2026-74576 CVE-2026-74577 CVE-2026-74579 CVE-2026-74580 CVE-2026-74581 CVE-2026-74582 CVE-2026-74583 CVE-2026-74585 CVE-2026-74586 CVE-2026-74587 CVE-2026-74588 CVE-2026-74589 CVE-2026-74590 CVE-2026-74592 CVE-2026-74594 CVE-2026-74595 CVE-2026-74597 CVE-2026-74598 CVE-2026-74599 CVE-2026-74601 CVE-2026-74602 CVE-2026-74603 CVE-2026-74604 CVE-2026-74606 CVE-2026-74607 CVE-2026-74608 CVE-2026-74609 CVE-2026-74610 CVE-2026-74612 CVE-2026-74613 CVE-2026-74614 CVE-2026-74615 CVE-2026-74616 CVE-2026-74618 CVE-2026-74619 CVE-2026-74620 CVE-2026-74621 CVE-2026-74622 CVE-2026-74623 CVE-2026-74624 CVE-2026-74625 CVE-2026-74628 CVE-2026-74630 CVE-2026-74631 CVE-2026-74632 CVE-2026-74634 CVE-2026-74635 CVE-2026-74636 CVE-2026-74637 CVE-2026-74641 CVE-2026-74644 CVE-2026-74646 CVE-2026-74647 CVE-2026-74648 CVE-2026-74649 CVE-2026-74650 CVE-2026-74651 CVE-2026-74654 CVE-2026-74655 CVE-2026-74656 CVE-2026-74657 CVE-2026-74658 CVE-2026-74659 CVE-2026-74660 CVE-2026-74661 CVE-2026-74663 CVE-2026-74664 CVE-2026-74665 CVE-2026-74666 CVE-2026-74667 CVE-2026-74668 CVE-2026-74669 CVE-2026-74670 CVE-2026-74671 CVE-2026-74672 CVE-2026-74673 CVE-2026-74675 CVE-2026-74676 CVE-2026-74677 CVE-2026-74678 CVE-2026-74679 CVE-2026-74680 CVE-2026-74682 CVE-2026-74683 CVE-2026-74684 CVE-2026-74685 CVE-2026-74688 CVE-2026-74689 CVE-2026-74691 CVE-2026-74692 CVE-2026-74693 CVE-2026-74694 CVE-2026-74696 CVE-2026-74700 CVE-2026-74701 CVE-2026-74704 CVE-2026-74705 CVE-2026-74710 CVE-2026-74712 CVE-2026-74714 CVE-2026-74717 CVE-2026-74718 CVE-2026-74719 CVE-2026-74720 CVE-2026-74722 CVE-2026-74724 CVE-2026-74725 CVE-2026-74726 CVE-2026-74730 CVE-2026-74732 Debian 錯誤 ： 1142912 1143545

    在 Linux 核心中發現數個弱點，這些弱點可能會導致特權提升、拒絕服務或資訊洩漏。

    針對穩定的發行版本 (trixie)，已在第 6.12.105-1 版中修復這些問題。

    建議您升級 linux 套件。

    如需有關 linux 安全性狀態的詳細資訊，請參閱其安全追蹤頁面：
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/linux

    有關 Debian 安全公告、如何將這些更新套用至您的系統以及常見問題的詳細資訊，請參閱：https://www.debian.org/security/

    郵寄清單：debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org

Tenable 已直接從 Debian 安全公告擷取前置描述區塊。

請注意，Nessus 並未測試這些問題，而是僅依據應用程式自我報告的版本號碼作出判斷。

Linux/Unix 主機上安裝了一個或多個受到弱點影響的套件，且廠商未提供可用的修補程式。

  - ALSA： usb-audio：修正 RME Digiface 狀態中的堆疊資訊洩露 snd_rme_digiface_read_status（） 會從裝置讀取四個字的狀態區塊，將未初始化的堆疊上 __le32 buf[4] 讀取，並且每當供應商 control-IN 傳輸未傳回負錯誤時，就會將所有四個字複製到呼叫者的 status[] 中。
    不論資料階段實際傳遞多少位元組，snd_usb_ctl_msg（） 都會將完整要求的大小複製回呼叫端的緩衝區： buf = kmemdup（data， size， GFP_KERNEL）;err = usb_control_msg（dev， pipe， request， requesttype， value， index， buf， size， timeout）;memcpy（data， buf， size）;usb_control_msg（） 在短 control-IN 上傳回傳輸的長度，這是一個非負值，並且只寫入該數量的位元組。複製回的其餘部分是調用方緩衝區的 kmemdup（） 映像，因此以短資料階段回應的裝置會留下 buf[] 的尾隨字，其中包含剩餘的核心堆疊。調用方中唯一的守衛是 err < 0，因此這些單詞存儲在 status[] 中。然後，它們會到達使用者空間：
    snd_rme_digiface_get_status_val（） 根據控制項的 reg/mask 選擇一個 16 位半字的 status[]，並且八個 Digiface 狀態控制項一起將整個 16 位元組框架公開給無權限的 /dev/snd/controlC* 讀取器。零初始化緩衝區，讓短讀取產生零，而不是堆疊殘留。這反映了 snd_rme_get_status1（），它已經在相同類型的供應商讀取之前清除了其輸出字。
    由 XBOW 發現，由 Baul Lee <baul.lee@xbow.com> 分類 （CVE-2026-74500）

請注意，Nessus 的判定取決於廠商所報告的套件是否存在。

ID	名稱	產品	系列	已發布	已更新	嚴重性
348574	Debian dla-4788 ： ata-modules-6.12.100+deb12-armmp-di - 安全性更新	Nessus	Debian Local Security Checks	2026/9/21	2026/9/21	medium
343049	Oracle Linux 10 / 9：Unbreakable Enterprise 核心 (ELSA-2026-500248)	Nessus	Oracle Linux Local Security Checks	2026/9/4	2026/9/23	high
364137	Oracle Linux 10 / 9：Unbreakable Enterprise 核心 (ELSA-2026-500374)	Nessus	Oracle Linux Local Security Checks	2026/10/8	2026/10/8	high
373062	AlmaLinux 9.6 [TuxCare] 安全性更新：kernel / kernel-64k / kernel-64k-core / kernel-64k-debug / etc 多個弱點（ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1793100968）	Nessus	Alma Linux Local Security Checks	2026/10/28	2026/10/28	high
373068	Rocky Linux 9.6 [TuxCare] 安全性更新：kernel / kernel-64k / kernel-64k-core / kernel-64k-debug / etc 多個弱點（ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1793100968）	Nessus	Rocky Linux Local Security Checks	2026/10/28	2026/10/28	high
339550	Debian dsa-6466 ： ata-modules-6.12.101+deb13-armmp-di - 安全性更新	Nessus	Debian Local Security Checks	2026/8/25	2026/8/29	medium
335851	Linux Distros 未修補弱點：CVE-2026-74500	Nessus	Misc.	2026/8/15	2026/11/6	high

偵測

搜尋 Plugin

medium

high

high

high

high

medium

high