Vulnerabilities exploitable today
354,883in current view
Single score combining CVSS, KEV membership and EPSS. Every CVE with its own record — timeline from publication to active exploitation.
In KEV catalog1,656
New KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,601
Distribution · last window
- Critical2,556
- High9,177
- Medium7,435
- Low692
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2022-49296—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-39251—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-41459—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-397565.5 MED6.3%
——2In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs: Prevent file descriptor table allocations exceeding INT_MAX
When sysctl_nr_open is set to a very high value (for example, 1073741816
as set by systemd), processes attempting to use file descriptors near
the limit can trigger massive memory allocation attempts that exceed
INT_MAX, resulting in a WARNING in mm/slub.c:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 44 at mm/slub.c:5027 __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x21a/0x288
This happens because kvmalloc_array() and kvmalloc() check if the
requested size exceeds INT_MAX and emit a warning when the allocation is
not flagged with __GFP_NOWARN.
Specifically, when nr_open is set to 1073741816 (0x3ffffff8) and a
process calls dup2(oldfd, 1073741880), the kernel attempts to allocate:
- File descriptor array: 1073741880 * 8 bytes = 8,589,935,040 bytes
- Multiple bitmaps: ~400MB
- Total allocation size: > 8GB (exceeding INT_MAX = 2,147,483,647)
Reproducer:
1. Set /proc/sys/fs/nr_open to 1073741816:
# echo 1073741816 > /proc/sys/fs/nr_open
2. Run a program that uses a high file descriptor:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/resource.h>
int main() {
struct rlimit rlim = {1073741824, 1073741824};
setrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE, &rlim);
dup2(2, 1073741880); // Triggers the warning
return 0;
}
3. Observe WARNING in dmesg at mm/slub.c:5027
systemd commit a8b627a introduced automatic bumping of fs.nr_open to the
maximum possible value. The rationale was that systems with memory
control groups (memcg) no longer need separate file descriptor limits
since memory is properly accounted. However, this change overlooked
that:
1. The kernel's allocation functions still enforce INT_MAX as a maximum
size regardless of memcg accounting
2. Programs and tests that legitimately test file descriptor limits can
inadvertently trigger massive allocations
3. The resulting allocations (>8GB) are impractical and will always fail
systemd's algorithm starts with INT_MAX and keeps halving the value
until the kernel accepts it. On most systems, this results in nr_open
being set to 1073741816 (0x3ffffff8), which is just under 1GB of file
descriptors.
While processes rarely use file descriptors near this limit in normal
operation, certain selftests (like
tools/testing/selftests/core/unshare_test.c) and programs that test file
descriptor limits can trigger this issue.
Fix this by adding a check in alloc_fdtable() to ensure the requested
allocation size does not exceed INT_MAX. This causes the operation to
fail with -EMFILE instead of triggering a kernel warning and avoids the
impractical >8GB memory allocation request.20dCVE-2021-0307—6.3%
——2——CVE-2019-9259—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-53809—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-12881—6.3%
——2——CVE-2022-39889—6.3%
——2——CVE-2022-4363—6.3%
——2——CVE-2022-40540—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-40310—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-3390—6.3%
——2——CVE-2020-0019—6.3%
——2——CVE-2024-34163—6.3%
——2——CVE-2021-0346—6.3%
——2——CVE-2022-49882—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-53801—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-147883.3 LOW6.3%
——2A security vulnerability has been detected in radareorg radare2 up to 6.1.6. Affected by this vulnerability is the function r_core_bin_load of the file libr/core/cfile.c. Such manipulation leads to use after free. The attack needs to be performed locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The name of the patch is 635ab1eeb30340c26076722a90cb91fb2272130b. Applying a patch is advised to resolve this issue.24dCVE-2022-41732—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-40288—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-54890—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-53758—6.3%
——2——CVE-2021-0147—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-40268—6.3%
——2——CVE-2020-0422—6.3%
——2——CVE-2021-22741—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-41241—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-53759—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-37905—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-13941—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-25306—6.3%
——2——CVE-2025-69645—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-53751—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-54057—6.3%
——2——CVE-2024-26837—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-40505—6.3%
——2——CVE-2026-20165—6.3%
——2——CVE-2023-30721—6.3%
——2——CVE-2021-22280—6.3%
——2——