CVE-2026-6893
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 flaw was found in dracut. A remote attacker on the adjacent network can exploit this vulnerability by providing specially crafted DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) options, such as a malicious hostname, to a system using dracut's legacy DHCP path. These options are improperly handled and written into temporary shell scripts without proper escaping, leading to command injection. This allows the attacker to achieve root code execution within the initramfs, potentially compromising the system's boot and network behavior.
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 analysis · moderate confidenceA command injection vulnerability exists in dracut's legacy DHCP path where specially crafted DHCP options (such as malicious hostnames) are written to temporary shell scripts without proper escaping. An attacker on the adjacent network can inject arbitrary shell commands that execute with root privileges in the initramfs, compromising the boot process and subsequent network configuration.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify dracut versionRun 'rpm -q dracut' or 'dpkg -l dracut' to find the installed dracut package versionAffected if The installed version is older than the patched release that addresses this vulnerability (compare against your distribution's security advisories)
-
Confirm legacy DHCP path is in useCheck if the system uses DHCP for initramfs networking: examine /etc/dracut.conf and /etc/dracut.conf.d/* files, and check kernel command line for 'ip=' or 'BOOTIF' parameters that trigger DHCPAffected if DHCP is configured for initramfs networking and the legacy DHCP code path is being invoked
-
Verify DHCP hostname option handlingInspect dracut configuration for 'dhcp' network options: look for 'dhcp=射' or similar settings in /etc/dracut.conf that enable the legacy DHCP client pathAffected if The legacy DHCP path is explicitly enabled in dracut configuration
-
Check for temporary script creationExamine if dracut creates temporary shell scripts during boot network initialization: look for /tmp/*-dhcp.* scripts in a debug boot or review dracut source for the vulnerable code path involving DHCP option writingAffected if Temporary scripts are being written with DHCP option data without proper escaping
A system is affected if it runs an unpatched dracut version with the legacy DHCP path enabled for initramfs network configuration.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataApply available dracut security patches when released. Until then, consider disabling the legacy DHCP path if possible, or implement network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted adjacent networks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6893 — 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-2026-6893 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