CVE-2026-72014
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 · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: reject data replies with an out-of-range payload size recv_dless_read() receives a P_DATA_REPLY from a peer into the bio of an outstanding read request. The peer-supplied payload length reaches it as the signed int data_size, and two peer-controlled inputs can make it negative. With a negotiated data-integrity-alg the digest length is subtracted first, so a reply whose payload is smaller than the digest underflows data_size. With no integrity algorithm (the default) data_size is assigned from the unsigned h95/h100 wire length and drbdd() never bounds it for a payload-carrying command, so a length above INT_MAX casts it negative; this path needs no non-default feature. The bio receive loop then computes expect = min_t(int, data_size, bv_len), which is negative, and drbd_recv_all_warn(mapped, expect) receives with a size_t of SIZE_MAX into the first mapped page. The sibling receive path read_in_block() is not affected: it uses an unsigned size and rejects it against DRBD_MAX_BIO_SIZE before receiving. Reject a data reply whose size is negative after the optional digest subtraction, covering both triggers. Impact: a malicious or man-in-the-middle DRBD peer copies attacker-chosen bytes past a bio page in the receiver, corrupting kernel memory. A node that reads from its peer (a diskless node, or read-balancing to the peer) is exposed in the default configuration; data-integrity-alg is not required.
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 detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $5,750. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-72014 — 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-2026-72014 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