Rocky Linux 9.6 主機已安裝的套件會受到 TuxCare ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1792445930 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：virt: tdx-guest: Just leak decrypted memory on unrecoverable errors In CoCo VMs it is possible for the untrusted host to cause set_memory_decrypted() to fail such that an error is returned and the resulting memory is shared. Callers need to take care to handle these errors to avoid returning decrypted (shared) memory to the page allocator, which could lead to functional or security issues. Leak the decrypted memory when set_memory_decrypted() fails, and don't need to print an error since set_memory_decrypted() will call WARN_ONCE(). (CVE-2024-57793)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：crypto: af_alg - zero initialize memory allocated via sock_kmalloc Several crypto user API contexts and requests allocated with sock_kmalloc() were left uninitialized, relying on callers to set fields explicitly. This resulted in the use of uninitialized data in certain error paths or when new fields are added in the future. The ACVP patches also contain two user-space interface files: algif_kpp.c and algif_akcipher.c. These too rely on proper initialization of their context structures. A particular issue has been observed with the newly added 'inflight' variable introduced in af_alg_ctx by commit: 67b164a871af (crypto: af_alg - Disallow multiple in-flight AIO requests) Because the context is not memset to zero after allocation, the inflight variable has contained garbage values. As a result, af_alg_alloc_areq() has incorrectly returned -EBUSY randomly when the garbage value was interpreted as true:
    https://github.com/gregkh/linux/blame/master/crypto/af_alg.c#L1209 The check directly tests ctx->inflight without explicitly comparing against true/false. Since inflight is only ever set to true or false later, an uninitialized value has triggered -EBUSY failures. Zero-initializing memory allocated with sock_kmalloc() ensures inflight and other fields start in a known state, removing random issues caused by uninitialized data. (CVE-2025-71113)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：rxrpc: proc: size address buffers for %pISpc output The AF_RXRPC procfs helpers format local and remote socket addresses into fixed 50-byte stack buffers with %pISpc. That is too small for the longest current-tree IPv6-with-port form the formatter can produce. In lib/vsprintf.c, the compressed IPv6 path uses a dotted-quad tail not only for v4mapped addresses, but also for ISATAP addresses via ipv6_addr_is_isatap(). As a result, a case such as [ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:0:5efe:255.255.255.255]:65535 is possible with the current formatter. That is 50 visible characters, so 51 bytes including the trailing NUL, which does not fit in the existing char[50] buffers used by net/rxrpc/proc.c. Size the buffers from the formatter's maximum textual form and switch the call sites to scnprintf(). Changes since v1: - correct the changelog to cite the actual maximum current-tree case explicitly - frame the proof around the ISATAP formatting path instead of the earlier mapped-v4 example (CVE-2026-31630)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: check for partial overlaps in anonymous sets Userspace provides an optimized representation in case intervals are adjacent, where the end element is omitted. The existing partial overlap detection logic skips anonymous set checks on start elements for this reason. However, it is possible to add intervals that overlap to this anonymous where two start elements with the same, eg. A-B, A-C where C < B. start end A B start end A C Restore the check on overlapping start elements to report an overlap. (CVE-2026-45873)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：drm/amd/display: Bound VBIOS record-chain walk loops [Why & How] All record-chain walk loops in bios_parser.c and bios_parser2.c use for(;;) and only terminate on a 0xFF record_type sentinel or zero record_size. A malformed VBIOS image missing the terminator record causes unbounded iteration at probe time, potentially hundreds of thousands of iterations with record_size=1. In the final iterations near the BIOS image boundary, struct casts beyond the 2-byte header validated by GET_IMAGE can also read out of bounds. Cap all 14 record-chain walk loops to BIOS_MAX_NUM_RECORD (256) iterations. The atombios.h defines up to 22 distinct record types and atomfirmware.h has 13. Assuming an average of less than 10 records per type (which is reasonable since most are connector- based) 256 is a generous upper bound. (cherry picked from commit 95700a3d660287ed657d6892f7be9ffc0e294a93) (CVE-2026-53138)

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。

  - 跟蹤：在註冊直方圖觸發器之前設定追蹤時鐘 hist_register_trigger（） 將觸發器放在 cmd_ops->init（） 的全域named_triggers清單中，然後才設定追蹤時鐘： if （data->cmd_ops->init） { ret = data->cmd_ops->init（data）; if （ret < 0） goto out; } if （hist_data->enable_timestamps） { ret = tracing_set_clock（file->tr， hist_data->attrs->clock）;if （ret） {hist_err（tr， HIST_ERR_SET_CLOCK_FAIL， errpos（clock））; 轉出; }在該呼叫之前，不會檢查時鐘字串，因此使用具有未知時鐘的common_timestamp的具名觸發程序在已經變得可找到之後會失敗。然後，event_hist_trigger_parse（） 會釋放它，但不會將其從清單中刪除，下次依名稱查詢會讀取釋放的物件： ~# cd /sys/kernel/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch ~# echo 'hist：name=foo：keys=common_pid：ts=common_timestamp：clock=bogus' > 觸發 bash： echo： 寫入錯誤： 無效的引數 ~# echo 'hist：name=foo：keys=common_pid' > 觸發器 錯誤： KASAN：slab-use-after-free in find_named_trigger+0xac/0xc0 任務 init/1 在 addr ffff88800915d760 讀取大小 8 find_named_trigger+0xac/0xc0hist_register_trigger+0xc1/0x900 event_hist_trigger_parse+0x3146/0x6af0 event_trigger_write+0xce/0x160 由任務 63 釋放：kfree+0x154/0x420 trigger_kthread_fn+0xfd/0x160 在註冊觸發器之前設定時鐘，以便在觸發器發佈後不會執行任何可能失敗的內容，就像提交 6f86bdeab633 （跟蹤：修正因損毀named_triggers清單造成的錯誤歷史） 將註冊移至其餘設定下方的方式。tracing_set_filter_buffering（） 是參照計數，因此 init 失敗路徑必須刪除時鐘區塊現在首先採用的參照。（CVE-2026-97935）

請注意，Nessus 的判定取決於廠商所報告的套件是否存在。

遠端 Debian 12 主機安裝的套件會受到 dla-4850 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian LTS 公告 DLA-4850-1 debian-lts@lists.debian.org https://www.debian.org/lts/security/Ben Hutchings 2026 年 10 月 22 日 https://wiki.debian.org/LTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------

    套件 ： linux-6.12 版本 ： 6.12.113-1~deb12u1 CVE ID ： CVE-2025-38204 CVE-2025-40158 CVE-2026-52988 CVE-2026-72315 CVE-2026-72463 CVE-2026-74347 CVE-2026-80935 CVE-2026-80937 CVE-2026-80939 CVE-2026-80980 CVE-2026-81016 CVE-2026-89437 CVE-2026-89441 CVE-2026-89445 CVE-2026-89452 CVE-2026-89467 CVE-2026-89500 CVE-2026-89503 CVE-2026-89520 CVE-2026-89527 CVE-2026-89633 CVE-2026-89638 CVE-2026-89766 CVE-2026-89795 CVE-2026-89797 CVE-2026-89806 CVE-2026-89827 CVE-2026-89832 CVE-2026-89837 CVE-2026-89838 CVE-2026-89840 CVE-2026-89859 CVE-2026-89868 CVE-2026-89912 CVE-2026-89921 CVE-2026-89956 CVE-2026-89971 CVE-2026-89972 CVE-2026-89996 CVE-2026-90002 CVE-2026-90013 CVE-2026-90016 CVE-2026-90023 CVE-2026-90029 CVE-2026-90030 CVE-2026-90146 CVE-2026-93179 CVE-2026-93196 CVE-2026-93199 CVE-2026-93200 CVE-2026-93231 CVE-2026-93243 CVE-2026-93244 CVE-2026-93285 CVE-2026-97527 CVE-2026-97528 CVE-2026-97529 CVE-2026-97530 CVE-2026-97531 CVE-2026-97532 CVE-2026-97534 CVE-2026-97535 CVE-2026-97536 CVE-2026-97537 CVE-2026-97549 CVE-2026-97558 CVE-2026-97559 CVE-2026-97566 CVE-2026-97567 CVE-2026-97571 CVE-2026-97574 CVE-2026-97594 CVE-2026-97597 CVE-2026-97603 CVE-2026-97609 CVE-2026-97615 CVE-2026-97618 CVE-2026-97619 CVE-2026-97620 CVE-2026-97901 CVE-2026-97906 CVE-2026-97918 CVE-2026-97919 CVE-2026-97933 CVE-2026-97934 CVE-2026-97935 CVE-2026-97938 CVE-2026-97939 CVE-2026-97949 CVE-2026-97950 CVE-2026-98101 CVE-2026-98161 CVE-2026-98167 CVE-2026-98168 CVE-2026-98169 CVE-2026-98170 CVE-2026-98171 CVE-2026-98172 CVE-2026-98173 CVE-2026-98174 CVE-2026-98175 CVE-2026-98179 CVE-2026-98181 CVE-2026-98182 CVE-2026-98184 CVE-2026-98185 CVE-2026-98186 CVE-2026-98187 CVE-2026-98188 CVE-2026-98189 CVE-2026-98190 CVE-2026-98191 CVE-2026-98192 CVE-2026-98193 CVE-2026-98194 CVE-2026-98195 CVE-2026-98196 CVE-2026-98197 CVE-2026-98198 CVE-2026-98199 CVE-2026-98200 CVE-2026-98201 CVE-2026-98202 CVE-2026-98203 CVE-2026-98204 CVE-2026-98205 CVE-2026-98206 CVE-2026-98207 CVE-2026-98208 CVE-2026-98209 CVE-2026-98210 CVE-2026-98211 CVE-2026-98212 CVE-2026-98213 CVE-2026-98214 CVE-2026-98215 CVE-2026-98216 CVE-2026-98217 CVE-2026-98218 CVE-2026-98221 CVE-2026-98222 CVE-2026-98227 CVE-2026-98229 CVE-2026-98230 CVE-2026-98231 CVE-2026-98232 CVE-2026-98233 CVE-2026-98234 CVE-2026-98235 CVE-2026-98236 CVE-2026-98237 CVE-2026-98238 CVE-2026-98239 CVE-2026-98241 CVE-2026-98245 CVE-2026-98246 CVE-2026-98247 CVE-2026-98248 CVE-2026-98249 CVE-2026-98251 CVE-2026-98252 CVE-2026-98253 CVE-2026-98254 CVE-2026-98255 CVE-2026-98257 CVE-2026-98260 CVE-2026-98261 CVE-2026-98262 CVE-2026-98263 CVE-2026-98264 CVE-2026-98265 CVE-2026-98266 CVE-2026-98267 CVE-2026-98269 CVE-2026-98270 CVE-2026-98271 CVE-2026-98272 CVE-2026-98275 CVE-2026-98276 CVE-2026-98282 CVE-2026-98283 CVE-2026-98287 CVE-2026-98290 CVE-2026-98291 CVE-2026-98293 CVE-2026-98295 CVE-2026-98297 CVE-2026-98298 CVE-2026-98299 CVE-2026-98300 CVE-2026-98301 CVE-2026-98302 CVE-2026-98303 CVE-2026-98306 CVE-2026-98307 CVE-2026-98308 CVE-2026-98309 CVE-2026-98311 CVE-2026-98312 CVE-2026-98314 CVE-2026-98316 CVE-2026-98319 CVE-2026-98320 CVE-2026-98322 CVE-2026-98323 CVE-2026-98325 CVE-2026-98326 CVE-2026-98327 CVE-2026-98328 CVE-2026-98329 CVE-2026-98331 CVE-2026-98334 CVE-2026-98335 CVE-2026-98336 CVE-2026-98337 CVE-2026-98339 CVE-2026-98340 CVE-2026-98342 CVE-2026-98343 CVE-2026-98344 CVE-2026-98345 CVE-2026-98346 CVE-2026-98347 CVE-2026-98348 CVE-2026-98349 CVE-2026-98351 CVE-2026-98352 CVE-2026-98354 CVE-2026-98357 CVE-2026-98358 CVE-2026-98359 CVE-2026-98360 CVE-2026-98362 CVE-2026-98363 CVE-2026-98365 CVE-2026-98366 CVE-2026-98367 CVE-2026-98368 CVE-2026-98369 CVE-2026-98370 CVE-2026-98373 CVE-2026-98374 CVE-2026-98375 CVE-2026-98377 CVE-2026-98378 CVE-2026-98379 CVE-2026-98380 CVE-2026-98381 CVE-2026-98382 CVE-2026-98383 CVE-2026-98384 CVE-2026-98386 CVE-2026-98403 CVE-2026-98406 CVE-2026-98407 CVE-2026-98409 CVE-2026-98410 CVE-2026-98411 CVE-2026-98412 CVE-2026-98413 CVE-2026-98416 CVE-2026-98417 CVE-2026-98419 CVE-2026-98421 CVE-2026-98422 CVE-2026-98423 CVE-2026-98425 CVE-2026-98426 CVE-2026-98428 CVE-2026-98429 CVE-2026-98430 CVE-2026-98432 CVE-2026-98433 CVE-2026-98435 CVE-2026-98440 CVE-2026-98441 CVE-2026-98442 CVE-2026-98443 CVE-2026-98445 CVE-2026-98448 CVE-2026-98450 CVE-2026-98451 CVE-2026-98452 CVE-2026-98453 CVE-2026-98454 CVE-2026-98455 CVE-2026-98456 CVE-2026-98457 CVE-2026-98458 CVE-2026-98459 CVE-2026-98460 CVE-2026-98461 CVE-2026-98462 CVE-2026-98464 CVE-2026-98465 CVE-2026-98468 CVE-2026-98473 CVE-2026-98475 CVE-2026-98476 CVE-2026-98477 CVE-2026-98479 CVE-2026-98481 CVE-2026-98482 CVE-2026-98483 CVE-2026-98484 CVE-2026-98485 CVE-2026-98486 CVE-2026-98487 CVE-2026-98488 CVE-2026-98489 CVE-2026-98490 CVE-2026-98491 CVE-2026-98493 CVE-2026-98494 CVE-2026-98495 CVE-2026-98498 CVE-2026-98499 CVE-2026-98501 CVE-2026-98502 CVE-2026-98503 CVE-2026-98504 CVE-2026-98505 CVE-2026-98506 CVE-2026-98507 CVE-2026-98508 CVE-2026-98509 CVE-2026-98510 CVE-2026-98511 CVE-2026-98512 CVE-2026-98513 CVE-2026-98514 CVE-2026-98515 CVE-2026-98516 CVE-2026-98517 CVE-2026-98519 CVE-2026-98521 CVE-2026-98522 CVE-2026-98523 CVE-2026-98524 CVE-2026-98525 CVE-2026-98526 CVE-2026-98527 CVE-2026-98528 CVE-2026-98529 CVE-2026-98531 CVE-2026-98532 CVE-2026-98533 CVE-2026-98534 CVE-2026-98535 CVE-2026-98536 CVE-2026-98537 CVE-2026-98538 CVE-2026-98539 CVE-2026-98541 CVE-2026-98544 CVE-2026-98545 CVE-2026-98546 CVE-2026-98547 CVE-2026-98548 CVE-2026-98549 CVE-2026-98550 CVE-2026-98553 CVE-2026-98554 CVE-2026-98555 CVE-2026-98559 CVE-2026-98561 CVE-2026-98565 CVE-2026-98566 CVE-2026-98567 CVE-2026-98568 CVE-2026-98569 CVE-2026-98572 CVE-2026-98573 CVE-2026-98575 CVE-2026-98576 CVE-2026-98577 CVE-2026-98578 CVE-2026-98579 CVE-2026-98580 CVE-2026-98581 CVE-2026-98582 CVE-2026-98583 CVE-2026-98586 CVE-2026-98588 CVE-2026-98590 CVE-2026-98591 CVE-2026-98593 CVE-2026-98594 CVE-2026-98596 CVE-2026-98597 CVE-2026-98600 CVE-2026-98601 CVE-2026-98602 CVE-2026-98605 CVE-2026-98606 CVE-2026-98607 CVE-2026-98608 CVE-2026-98609 CVE-2026-98610 CVE-2026-98611 CVE-2026-98612 CVE-2026-98613 CVE-2026-98614 CVE-2026-98615 CVE-2026-98618 CVE-2026-98620 CVE-2026-98621 CVE-2026-98622 CVE-2026-98623 CVE-2026-98624 CVE-2026-98625 CVE-2026-98626 CVE-2026-98629 CVE-2026-98631 CVE-2026-98632 CVE-2026-98634 CVE-2026-98636 CVE-2026-98640 CVE-2026-98641 CVE-2026-98642 CVE-2026-98643 CVE-2026-98644 CVE-2026-98646 CVE-2026-98647 CVE-2026-98655 CVE-2026-98656 CVE-2026-98657 CVE-2026-98658 CVE-2026-98660 CVE-2026-98661 CVE-2026-98662 CVE-2026-98663 CVE-2026-98664 CVE-2026-98665 CVE-2026-98666 CVE-2026-98668 CVE-2026-98669 CVE-2026-98670 CVE-2026-98671 CVE-2026-98672 CVE-2026-98673 CVE-2026-98677 CVE-2026-98679 CVE-2026-98680 CVE-2026-98681 CVE-2026-98686 CVE-2026-98687 CVE-2026-98694 CVE-2026-98695 CVE-2026-98696 CVE-2026-98697 CVE-2026-98698 CVE-2026-98699 CVE-2026-98700 CVE-2026-98701 CVE-2026-98702 CVE-2026-98703 CVE-2026-98704 CVE-2026-98705 CVE-2026-98706 CVE-2026-98707 CVE-2026-98708 CVE-2026-98709 CVE-2026-98710 CVE-2026-98711 CVE-2026-98713 CVE-2026-98716 CVE-2026-98717 CVE-2026-98720 CVE-2026-98721 CVE-2026-98722 CVE-2026-98725 CVE-2026-98726 CVE-2026-98727 CVE-2026-98728 CVE-2026-98730 CVE-2026-98731 CVE-2026-98732 CVE-2026-98733 CVE-2026-98734 CVE-2026-98735 CVE-2026-98736 CVE-2026-98737 CVE-2026-98738 CVE-2026-98739 CVE-2026-98741 CVE-2026-98742 CVE-2026-98743 CVE-2026-98744 CVE-2026-98745 CVE-2026-98746 CVE-2026-98748 CVE-2026-98749 CVE-2026-98750 CVE-2026-98751 CVE-2026-98752 CVE-2026-98753 CVE-2026-98754 CVE-2026-98755 CVE-2026-98756 CVE-2026-98757 CVE-2026-98758 CVE-2026-98760 CVE-2026-98761 CVE-2026-98762 CVE-2026-98763 CVE-2026-98764 CVE-2026-98765 CVE-2026-98766 CVE-2026-98767 CVE-2026-98768 CVE-2026-98769 CVE-2026-98770 CVE-2026-98771 CVE-2026-98772 CVE-2026-98773 CVE-2026-98775 CVE-2026-98777 CVE-2026-98778 CVE-2026-98779 CVE-2026-98780 CVE-2026-98781 CVE-2026-98782 CVE-2026-98783 CVE-2026-98784 CVE-2026-98785 CVE-2026-98790 CVE-2026-98791 CVE-2026-98792 CVE-2026-98793 CVE-2026-98794 CVE-2026-98796 CVE-2026-98797 CVE-2026-98798 CVE-2026-98801 CVE-2026-98805 CVE-2026-98807 CVE-2026-98808 CVE-2026-98809 CVE-2026-98811 CVE-2026-98812 CVE-2026-98819 CVE-2026-98822 CVE-2026-98823 CVE-2026-98825 CVE-2026-98826 CVE-2026-98827 CVE-2026-98828 CVE-2026-98830 CVE-2026-98831 CVE-2026-98833 CVE-2026-98835 CVE-2026-98836 CVE-2026-98837 CVE-2026-98838 CVE-2026-98840 CVE-2026-98841 CVE-2026-98844 CVE-2026-98845 CVE-2026-98846 CVE-2026-98847 CVE-2026-98848 CVE-2026-98849 CVE-2026-98850 CVE-2026-98851 CVE-2026-98852 CVE-2026-98854 CVE-2026-98855 CVE-2026-98856 CVE-2026-98857 CVE-2026-98858 CVE-2026-98859 CVE-2026-98860 CVE-2026-98862 CVE-2026-99999 Debian 錯誤 ： 1149499 1149564 1150891

    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 6.12.113-1~deb12u1 版本中修復。此更新還包括來自穩定更新 6.12.112 和 6.12.113的更多錯誤修復。

    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-2026：1792445930 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：virt: tdx-guest: Just leak decrypted memory on unrecoverable errors In CoCo VMs it is possible for the untrusted host to cause set_memory_decrypted() to fail such that an error is returned and the resulting memory is shared. Callers need to take care to handle these errors to avoid returning decrypted (shared) memory to the page allocator, which could lead to functional or security issues. Leak the decrypted memory when set_memory_decrypted() fails, and don't need to print an error since set_memory_decrypted() will call WARN_ONCE(). (CVE-2024-57793)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：crypto: af_alg - zero initialize memory allocated via sock_kmalloc Several crypto user API contexts and requests allocated with sock_kmalloc() were left uninitialized, relying on callers to set fields explicitly. This resulted in the use of uninitialized data in certain error paths or when new fields are added in the future. The ACVP patches also contain two user-space interface files: algif_kpp.c and algif_akcipher.c. These too rely on proper initialization of their context structures. A particular issue has been observed with the newly added 'inflight' variable introduced in af_alg_ctx by commit: 67b164a871af (crypto: af_alg - Disallow multiple in-flight AIO requests) Because the context is not memset to zero after allocation, the inflight variable has contained garbage values. As a result, af_alg_alloc_areq() has incorrectly returned -EBUSY randomly when the garbage value was interpreted as true:
    https://github.com/gregkh/linux/blame/master/crypto/af_alg.c#L1209 The check directly tests ctx->inflight without explicitly comparing against true/false. Since inflight is only ever set to true or false later, an uninitialized value has triggered -EBUSY failures. Zero-initializing memory allocated with sock_kmalloc() ensures inflight and other fields start in a known state, removing random issues caused by uninitialized data. (CVE-2025-71113)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：rxrpc: proc: size address buffers for %pISpc output The AF_RXRPC procfs helpers format local and remote socket addresses into fixed 50-byte stack buffers with %pISpc. That is too small for the longest current-tree IPv6-with-port form the formatter can produce. In lib/vsprintf.c, the compressed IPv6 path uses a dotted-quad tail not only for v4mapped addresses, but also for ISATAP addresses via ipv6_addr_is_isatap(). As a result, a case such as [ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:0:5efe:255.255.255.255]:65535 is possible with the current formatter. That is 50 visible characters, so 51 bytes including the trailing NUL, which does not fit in the existing char[50] buffers used by net/rxrpc/proc.c. Size the buffers from the formatter's maximum textual form and switch the call sites to scnprintf(). Changes since v1: - correct the changelog to cite the actual maximum current-tree case explicitly - frame the proof around the ISATAP formatting path instead of the earlier mapped-v4 example (CVE-2026-31630)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：netfilter: nft_set_rbtree: check for partial overlaps in anonymous sets Userspace provides an optimized representation in case intervals are adjacent, where the end element is omitted. The existing partial overlap detection logic skips anonymous set checks on start elements for this reason. However, it is possible to add intervals that overlap to this anonymous where two start elements with the same, eg. A-B, A-C where C < B. start end A B start end A C Restore the check on overlapping start elements to report an overlap. (CVE-2026-45873)

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：drm/amd/display: Bound VBIOS record-chain walk loops [Why & How] All record-chain walk loops in bios_parser.c and bios_parser2.c use for(;;) and only terminate on a 0xFF record_type sentinel or zero record_size. A malformed VBIOS image missing the terminator record causes unbounded iteration at probe time, potentially hundreds of thousands of iterations with record_size=1. In the final iterations near the BIOS image boundary, struct casts beyond the 2-byte header validated by GET_IMAGE can also read out of bounds. Cap all 14 record-chain walk loops to BIOS_MAX_NUM_RECORD (256) iterations. The atombios.h defines up to 22 distinct record types and atomfirmware.h has 13. Assuming an average of less than 10 records per type (which is reasonable since most are connector- based) 256 is a generous upper bound. (cherry picked from commit 95700a3d660287ed657d6892f7be9ffc0e294a93) (CVE-2026-53138)

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-6568 公告中提及的多個弱點影響。

    - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian安全公告 DSA-6568-1 security@debian.org https://www.debian.org/security/Salvatore Bonaccorso 2026 年 10 月 16 日 https://www.debian.org/security/faq
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    套件 ： linux CVE ID ： CVE-2025-38204 CVE-2025-40158 CVE-2026-52988 CVE-2026-72315 CVE-2026-72463 CVE-2026-74347 CVE-2026-80935 CVE-2026-80937 CVE-2026-80939 CVE-2026-80980 CVE-2026-81016 CVE-2026-89437 CVE-2026-89441 CVE-2026-89445 CVE-2026-89452 CVE-2026-89467 CVE-2026-89500 CVE-2026-89503 CVE-2026-89520 CVE-2026-89527 CVE-2026-89633 CVE-2026-89638 CVE-2026-89766 CVE-2026-89795 CVE-2026-89797 CVE-2026-89806 CVE-2026-89827 CVE-2026-89832 CVE-2026-89837 CVE-2026-89838 CVE-2026-89840 CVE-2026-89859 CVE-2026-89868 CVE-2026-89912 CVE-2026-89921 CVE-2026-89956 CVE-2026-89971 CVE-2026-89972 CVE-2026-89996 CVE-2026-90002 CVE-2026-90013 CVE-2026-90016 CVE-2026-90023 CVE-2026-90029 CVE-2026-90030 CVE-2026-90146 CVE-2026-93179 CVE-2026-93196 CVE-2026-93199 CVE-2026-93200 CVE-2026-93231 CVE-2026-93243 CVE-2026-93244 CVE-2026-93285 CVE-2026-97527 CVE-2026-97528 CVE-2026-97529 CVE-2026-97530 CVE-2026-97531 CVE-2026-97532 CVE-2026-97534 CVE-2026-97535 CVE-2026-97536 CVE-2026-97537 CVE-2026-97549 CVE-2026-97558 CVE-2026-97559 CVE-2026-97566 CVE-2026-97567 CVE-2026-97571 CVE-2026-97574 CVE-2026-97594 CVE-2026-97597 CVE-2026-97603 CVE-2026-97609 CVE-2026-97615 CVE-2026-97618 CVE-2026-97619 CVE-2026-97620 CVE-2026-97901 CVE-2026-97906 CVE-2026-97918 CVE-2026-97919 CVE-2026-97933 CVE-2026-97934 CVE-2026-97935 CVE-2026-97938 CVE-2026-97939 CVE-2026-97949 CVE-2026-97950 CVE-2026-98101 CVE-2026-98161 CVE-2026-98167 CVE-2026-98168 CVE-2026-98169 CVE-2026-98170 CVE-2026-98171 CVE-2026-98172 CVE-2026-98173 CVE-2026-98174 CVE-2026-98175 CVE-2026-98179 CVE-2026-98181 CVE-2026-98182 CVE-2026-98184 CVE-2026-98185 CVE-2026-98186 CVE-2026-98187 CVE-2026-98188 CVE-2026-98189 CVE-2026-98190 CVE-2026-98191 CVE-2026-98192 CVE-2026-98193 CVE-2026-98194 CVE-2026-98195 CVE-2026-98196 CVE-2026-98197 CVE-2026-98198 CVE-2026-98199 CVE-2026-98200 CVE-2026-98201 CVE-2026-98202 CVE-2026-98203 CVE-2026-98204 CVE-2026-98205 CVE-2026-98206 CVE-2026-98207 CVE-2026-98208 CVE-2026-98209 CVE-2026-98210 CVE-2026-98211 CVE-2026-98212 CVE-2026-98213 CVE-2026-98214 CVE-2026-98215 CVE-2026-98216 CVE-2026-98217 CVE-2026-98218 CVE-2026-98221 CVE-2026-98222 CVE-2026-98227 CVE-2026-98229 CVE-2026-98230 CVE-2026-98231 CVE-2026-98232 CVE-2026-98233 CVE-2026-98234 CVE-2026-98235 CVE-2026-98236 CVE-2026-98237 CVE-2026-98238 CVE-2026-98239 CVE-2026-98241 CVE-2026-98245 CVE-2026-98246 CVE-2026-98247 CVE-2026-98248 CVE-2026-98249 CVE-2026-98251 CVE-2026-98252 CVE-2026-98253 CVE-2026-98254 CVE-2026-98255 CVE-2026-98257 CVE-2026-98260 CVE-2026-98261 CVE-2026-98262 CVE-2026-98263 CVE-2026-98264 CVE-2026-98265 CVE-2026-98266 CVE-2026-98267 CVE-2026-98269 CVE-2026-98270 CVE-2026-98271 CVE-2026-98272 CVE-2026-98275 CVE-2026-98276 CVE-2026-98282 CVE-2026-98283 CVE-2026-98287 CVE-2026-98290 CVE-2026-98291 CVE-2026-98293 CVE-2026-98295 CVE-2026-98297 CVE-2026-98298 CVE-2026-98299 CVE-2026-98300 CVE-2026-98301 CVE-2026-98302 CVE-2026-98303 CVE-2026-98306 CVE-2026-98307 CVE-2026-98308 CVE-2026-98309 CVE-2026-98311 CVE-2026-98312 CVE-2026-98314 CVE-2026-98316 CVE-2026-98319 CVE-2026-98320 CVE-2026-98322 CVE-2026-98323 CVE-2026-98325 CVE-2026-98326 CVE-2026-98327 CVE-2026-98328 CVE-2026-98329 CVE-2026-98331 CVE-2026-98334 CVE-2026-98335 CVE-2026-98336 CVE-2026-98337 CVE-2026-98339 CVE-2026-98340 CVE-2026-98342 CVE-2026-98343 CVE-2026-98344 CVE-2026-98345 CVE-2026-98346 CVE-2026-98347 CVE-2026-98348 CVE-2026-98349 CVE-2026-98351 CVE-2026-98352 CVE-2026-98354 CVE-2026-98357 CVE-2026-98358 CVE-2026-98359 CVE-2026-98360 CVE-2026-98362 CVE-2026-98363 CVE-2026-98365 CVE-2026-98366 CVE-2026-98367 CVE-2026-98368 CVE-2026-98369 CVE-2026-98370 CVE-2026-98373 CVE-2026-98374 CVE-2026-98375 CVE-2026-98377 CVE-2026-98378 CVE-2026-98379 CVE-2026-98380 CVE-2026-98381 CVE-2026-98382 CVE-2026-98383 CVE-2026-98384 CVE-2026-98386 CVE-2026-98403 CVE-2026-98406 CVE-2026-98407 CVE-2026-98409 CVE-2026-98410 CVE-2026-98411 CVE-2026-98412 CVE-2026-98413 CVE-2026-98416 CVE-2026-98417 CVE-2026-98419 CVE-2026-98421 CVE-2026-98422 CVE-2026-98423 CVE-2026-98425 CVE-2026-98426 CVE-2026-98428 CVE-2026-98429 CVE-2026-98430 CVE-2026-98432 CVE-2026-99999 Debian 錯誤 ： 1149499 1149564 1150891

    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 6.12.113-1 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。

ID	名稱	產品	系列	已發布	已更新	嚴重性
369491	Rocky Linux 9.6 [TuxCare] 安全性更新：kernel / kernel-64k / kernel-64k-core / kernel-64k-debug / etc 多個漏洞（ALMALINUX9.6：CLSA-2026：1792445930）	Nessus	Rocky Linux Local Security Checks	2026/10/21	2026/10/21	high
350661	Linux Distros 未修補弱點：CVE-2026-97935	Nessus	Misc.	2026/9/25	2026/11/6	high
370518	Debian dla-4850 ： ata-modules-6.12.107+deb12-armmp-di - 安全性更新	Nessus	Debian Local Security Checks	2026/10/22	2026/10/23	high
369490	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-2026：1792445930）	Nessus	Alma Linux Local Security Checks	2026/10/21	2026/10/21	high
366507	Debian dsa-6568 ： ata-modules-6.12.111+deb13-armmp-di - 安全性更新	Nessus	Debian Local Security Checks	2026/10/16	2026/10/19	high

偵測

搜尋 Plugin

high

high

high

high

high