CVE-2026-9492
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 · uneditedThe MBStorage DRAM lighting control module within Gigabyte Control Center (GCC) developed by GIGABYTE Technology has an Improper Access Control vulnerability. Authenticated local attackers can send specific IOCTL commands through the driver MyPortIO_x64.sys bundled with the module, thereby arbitrarily reading and writing physical memory and obtaining kernel-level privileges.
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 · high confidenceThe MBStorage DRAM lighting control module in Gigabyte Control Center includes a vulnerable kernel-mode driver (MyPortIO_x64.sys) that fails to properly restrict access to IOCTL commands. An authenticated local attacker can send specific IOCTL commands to achieve arbitrary physical memory read/write operations, ultimately escalating privileges to kernel level.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Verify Gigabyte Control Center installationOpen Programs and Features (appwiz.cpl) or check C:\Program Files\GIGABYTE\Control Center for the presence of the Gigabyte Control Center application folderAffected if Gigabyte Control Center is installed on the system
-
Locate the MyPortIO_x64.sys driver fileSearch for MyPortIO_x64.sys in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\ and within the Gigabyte Control Center installation directory (typically C:\Program Files\GIGABYTE\Control Center\)Affected if The file MyPortIO_x64.sys exists on the system
-
Check if the driver is currently loadedRun 'sc query MyPortIO' in Command Prompt or check the driver loaded status via 'driverquery /v | findstr MyPortIO'Affected if The MyPortIO driver service exists and is in a running or stopped state
-
Identify the Gigabyte Control Center versionRight-click the Gigabyte Control Center executable or access its About/Help section to view the installed version number, then compare to any vendor-released patched versionsAffected if An unpatched version of Gigabyte Control Center is running with the vulnerable driver present
-
Audit driver file propertiesRight-click MyPortIO_x64.sys, select Properties, and check the File Version and Digital Signature tabs to determine the driver version and signing statusAffected if The driver file exists but is not signed by an updatedGigabyte certificate or shows an outdated version
The system is affected if Gigabyte Control Center is installed with the MyPortIO_x64.sys driver present and the installed version has not been patched to restrict IOCTL access.
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 the vendor-supplied patch or updated version of Gigabyte Control Center that remediates the vulnerable MyPortIO_x64.sys driver. Until the patch is applied, consider restricting local access to untrusted accounts and monitoring for suspicious driver interaction.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9492 — 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-2026-9492 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