← Back to CVE intelligence
CVE intelligence

CVE-2026-98289

Vulnerability intelligence

Published Oct 6, 2026Sources checked Oct 7, 2026
N/ACVSS not listedScore unavailable
What this means

Review the available evidence

CVE-2026-98289. It is not in the current CISA KEV record we collected. That does not prove exploitation has not occurred.

What to do next

Remediation and response

Microsoft Security Response Center guidance

Vendor revision: Oct 7, 2026

Release Notes

CISA KEVNot listedBased on the latest collected catalog
EPSS0.2%Estimated 30-day exploitation probability
Ransomware useNot markedCISA KEV ransomware field
Threat actors0Source-linked actor relationships
Overview

What is CVE-2026-98289?

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Unify scc_index when finalising SCC in __unix_walk_scc(). Commit bfdb01283ee8 ("af_unix: Assign a unique index to SCC.") changed Tarjan's algorithm to update lowlink with lowlink, which is called lowpoint (unix_vertex.scc_index). unix_vertex_dead() assumes all vertices in an SCC share the same lowpoint, but this is not always true if an SCC has two or more back edges, depending on the order of DFS. For example, the graph below has two back edges from B to A and from C to B. A --> B --> C ^ | ^ | `----' `----' If DFS walks through A -> B -> C -> B (-> C -> B) -> A (-> B -> A), each index and scc_index will be updated as follows. A --> B --> C C = (3, 3) (index, scc_index) B = (2, 2) A = (1, 1) A ... B ... C C = (3, 2)<-. ^ | B = (2, 2) -' `----' A = (1, 1) A ... B ... C C = (3, 2) ^ | . . B = (2, 1)<-. `----' .... A = (1, 1) -' Then, unix_vertex_dead() thinks that B is passed to another SCC with scc_index 2, and the SCC is not garbage-collected. This does not happen if DFS walks in a different order below or starts from B. 1 3 A --> B --> C ^ | ^ | `----' `----' 2 4 Let's unify scc_index across the SCC when finalising it. Note that updating v->index was previously done in unix_scc_dead(), when called from __unix_walk_scc(), just to save one loop. Since __unix_walk_scc() now iterates over the SCC anyway, the update is moved back to __unix_walk_scc() and 'fast' argument is dropped.

Source: NVD