linux: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: bound the attribute-list entry in ntfs_rea...
CVE-2026-80869 is fixed in linux on 1 platform by DEBIAN-CVE-2026-80869 (version 7.1.5-1), released September 5, 2026. It is not reported as exploited. Patch Radar priority: Routine.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: bound the attribute-list entry in ntfs_read_inode_mount() The $MFT attribute-list walk in ntfs_read_inode_mount() validates each entry only with "(u8 *)al_entry + 6 > al_end" and "(u8 *)al_entry + le16_to_cpu(al_entry->length) > al_end", but then reads al_entry->lowest_vcn (an __le64 at offset 8) and al_entry->mft_reference (offset 16) -- fields beyond the 6 bytes proven in range. al_entry->length is attacker-controlled and only required non-zero, so a short entry (e.g. length 8) placed at the tail passes both checks while the lowest_vcn / mft_reference reads fall past al_end. al_end is ni->attr_list + attr_list_size (the on-disk size); the buffer is kvzalloc(round_up(attr_list_size, SECTOR_SIZE)), so the sector rounding usually absorbs the over-read -- but when attr_list_size is a multiple of SECTOR_SIZE there is no slack and a crafted $MFT attribute list produces an out-of-bounds read at mount time. Validate the entry with ntfs_attr_list_entry_is_valid() (added in patch 1/3) before dereferencing it, matching the bound the other attribute-list walks now use. The validator already requires the length to cover the fixed header, which makes the separate "!al_entry->length" check redundant, so drop it too.
Where it's fixed
| Product | Fixed in | Fix | Released |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | |||
| linux · Debian 14 | 7.1.5-1 | DEBIAN-CVE-2026-80869 | Sep 5, 2026 |
Patch Radar data is free to use with attribution. Terms and how to credit it.
Product names, logos and trademarks shown on Patch Radar belong to their respective owners. They are used only to identify the software each security fix applies to and to help readers find their platform. Their use does not imply any affiliation with, or endorsement by, those owners, and Patchblox is not affiliated with any of them.