CVE-2026-45254
Incorrect libcap_net limitation list manipulation
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Fix
- Fixed in p9, p5, p14
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
CISA's decision points: whether it is exploited, whether attacks can be automated, and how much control an attacker gets. Assessed (SSVC 2.0.3).What do these mean? →
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: yes
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
In the case of the cap_net service, when a key present in the old limit was omitted from the new limit, the missing key was treated as "allow any" instead of being rejected. In certain scenarios, an application that had previously restricted a subset of network operations could ask for a new limit that extended the permissions of the process.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: yes · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- FreeBSD FreeBSD
From 15.0-RELEASE · fixed in p9; From 14.4-RELEASE · fixed in p5; From 14.3-RELEASE · fixed in p14