EbpfApplication · Cilium
CVE-2026-10722
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability has been found in cilium ebpf up to 0.21.0. This affects the function loadRawSpec of the file btf/btf.go of the component LoadCollectionSpec/LoadCollectionSpecFromReader. Such manipulation of the argument offset leads to integer overflow. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 533dfc82fd228bfadf42ea7180c39de7d9af47fa. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisA legacy NVD category grouping numeric mistakes — overflows, truncation, sign errors — where a miscalculated value goes on to drive a dangerous decision such as a memory allocation or a bounds check. It is a bucket rather than one specific bug. Remediation is checked arithmetic and validating any computed size or index before it is used.
General guidance for the numeric errors class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
EbpfApplication
<= 0.21.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to the latest cilium/ebpf release newer than 0.21.0 (the version containing commit 533dfc82fd228bfadf42ea7180c39de7d9af47fa)
- 1. Check the current ebpf library version in use by examining go.mod or running go list -m all | grep cilium/ebpf
- 2. Review the fix commit 533dfc82fd228bfadf42ea7180c39de7d9af47fa on GitHub to understand the changes made to btf/btf.go for remediating the integer overflow in loadRawSpec
- 3. Identify the latest stable release of cilium/ebpf that includes this fix commit
- 4. Upgrade the dependency to the fixed version using: go get github.com/cilium/ebpf@<fixed-version>
- 5. Run go mod tidy to update go.mod and go.sum
- 6. Rebuild and test the application to ensure compatibility with the updated ebpf library
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10722 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10722 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data