Home
» GitHub Advisories
» GHSA-rx3c-36rq-fgf8
Description
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.
Basic information
Type
unreviewed
Severity
medium Advisory on GitHub
Open advisory ↗ Repository advisory
—
Source code
Not specified Published (advisory)
2026-05-21 12:31:45 UTC
Updated
2026-05-21 18:34:13 UTC
NVD published
2026-05-21
EPSS Score
Score
Percentile
0.03%
8.64%
CVSS Scores
Base score
Version
Severity
Vector
6.5
3.1
—
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:L)
Some sensitive info could get out, but not a total data dump.
Integrity (I:L)
Attackers could change some data, but it’s limited—not everything goes.
Availability (A:N)
Service keeps running; no real outage angle.
CWEs
CWE id
Name
CWE-269
Improper Privilege Management
cvelogic
Threat Intelligence