BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2022-49658High confidence

bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals

Linux · Linux

5.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Scheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
Distribution package intelligence

Ubuntu vendor package status

Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.

1 package state
Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Ubuntu releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-raspi-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 8 Sept 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2022-54574

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionScheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0 ---truncated---

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0 ---truncated---

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds. This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Before: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*] 10: (95) exit What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved the umax to be equal to umin. Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync() helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0. After: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) 1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar() 4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) 5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 6: (95) exit from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767) 8: (95) exit from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0 ---truncated---

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
local access → vulnerable operation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration.
CWE not yet assigned
CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-1057Multiples vulnérabilités dans les produits VMware

d?id=CVE-2022-49641 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49642 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49642 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49643 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49643 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49646 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49646 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49648 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49648 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49653 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49653 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49655 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49655 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49656 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49656 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49657 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49657 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49658 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49658 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49659 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49659 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49662 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49662 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49663 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49663 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49670 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49670 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49671 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49671 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49672 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49672 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49673 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49673 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49674 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0449Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-49521 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49525 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49525 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49534 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49534 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49535 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49535 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49536 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49536 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49537 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49537 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49542 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49542 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49561 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49561 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49590 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49590 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49658 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49658 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49668 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49668 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49693 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49693 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49725 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49725 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49728 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49728 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49730 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49730 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49741 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49741 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49745 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49745 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49749 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0336Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-49647 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49648 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49648 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49649 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49649 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49650 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49650 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49652 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49652 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49653 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49653 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49655 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49655 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49656 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49656 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49657 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49657 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49658 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49658 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49661 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49661 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49663 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49663 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49665 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49665 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49667 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49667 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49668 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49668 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49670 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49670 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49671 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49671 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49672 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0307Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2022-49647 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49648 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49648 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49649 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49649 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49650 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49650 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49652 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49652 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49653 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49653 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49655 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49655 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49656 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49656 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49657 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49657 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49658 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49658 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49661 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49661 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49663 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49663 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49665 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49665 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49667 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49667 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49668 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49668 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49670 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49670 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49671 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-49671 Référence CVE CVE-2022-49672 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
b03c9f9fdc37dab81ea04d5dacdc5995d4c224c2 < e917be1f83ea14a68b3cf64d3da9968eaf991dae; b03c9f9fdc37dab81ea04d5dacdc5995d4c224c2 < a7de8d436db92bab8b1f44624297c2554a6ac36b; b03c9f9fdc37dab81ea04d5dacdc5995d4c224c2 < b2a28bb36664c94375926cbbb91976242847699d; b03c9f9fdc37dab81ea04d5dacdc5995d4c224c2 < 3844d153a41adea718202c10ae91dc96b37453b5; 4.14
Fixed
< 4.14; 5.10.130 ≤ 5.10.*; 5.15.54 ≤ 5.15.*; 5.18.11 ≤ 5.18.*; 5.19 ≤ *
Action
Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 26 Feb 2025 · Last source change 11 May 2026, 19:04 UTC · CWE not yet assigned

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-54574
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceUnavailable
NVD statusNVD enriched

Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-54574↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Patch or update reference↗Patch or update reference↗Patch or update reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2022-49658 · cve.blacktree.nl