Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98481 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-98481
nfc: port100: reject frames whose declared length exceeds the received data
Published 2026-10-18 (today) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem drivers/nfc. Debian urgency: not yet assigned.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-98481 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | fixed | 6.1.190-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.1.190-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 13trixie | fixed | 6.12.113-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.12.113-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.2.9-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.9-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.2.9-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.9-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
port100_recv_response() passes the URB transfer buffer to port100_rx_frame_is_valid(), which checksums le16_to_cpu(frame->datalen) bytes of frame->data. datalen is a 16-bit field supplied by the device and is never checked against the number of bytes actually received (urb->actual_length), so a device reporting a datalen larger than the received frame makes port100_data_checksum() read out of bounds past the transfer buffer. Reject a response whose declared frame size does not fit the received length before validating it. Found by 0sec (https://0sec.ai) using automated source analysis; the missing bound is evident from source. Compile-tested.
Where it lives
The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.
drivers/nfc/port100.c
- What this is
- NFC SUBSYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/nfc/ · oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev · Maintained
- Kernel module
- port100
Check it on the machine
grep -w CONFIG_NFC_PORT100 /boot/config-$(uname -r)Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.
lsmod | grep -w port100Prints a line if that module is loaded right now, and nothing if it is not. One that is not loaded can still be loaded later by anything that needs it.
Show whether Debian builds this, per release
Debian builds this, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed.
- bookworm, trixie, forky, sidMnot built on amd64/cloud-amd64, arm64/cloud-arm64
- M
- a module where it is built at all; some flavours do not build it
- Build switch
- CONFIG_NFC_PORT100
From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages
Signals
- Published
- 2026-10-18 (today)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- not scored
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- not yet assignedsource
- Subsystem
- drivers/nfc
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 3.13 | 5.10.271 | 0d482995f0cd |
| 3.13 | 5.15.222 | 9e8df087826b |
| 3.13 | 6.1.189 | db66a3058863 |
| 3.13 | 6.6.158 | 144ad477c381 |
| 3.13 | 6.12.112 | e4da1452e10c |
| 3.13 | 6.18.55 | 14b1467cfc66 |
| 3.13 | 7.2.9 | 035056e07ea6 |
| 3.13 | 7.3 | 092c6a605cbd |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98481, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.