This is very similar in root cause and exploitation to Copy Fail.
Which illustrates pretty well something that's lost when relying heavily on LLMs to do work for you: exploration.
I find that doing vulnerability research using AI really hinders my creativity. When your workflow consists of asking questions and getting answers immediately, you don't get to see what's nearby. It's like a genie - you get exactly what you asked for and nothing more.
The researcher who discovered Copy Fail relied heavily on AI after noticing something fishy. If he had to manually wade through lots of code by himself, he would have many more chances to spot these twin bugs.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure that by using slightly less directed prompting, a frontier LLM would found these bugs for him too.
It's a very unusual case of negative synergy, where working together hurt performance.
The RxRPC one is definitely a different root cause (although caused by a very similar mistake).
For the ESP one it's a bit harder to tell. I don't think the wrong thing was fixed, just that there was a very similar bug in almost the same spot. Could be wrong about that though.
Or a follow up prompt: "find similar classes of bugs". Once the actual case has been layed out finding like bugs isn't too hard. I hear you on the creativity bit. Like any tool, AI can put blinders on. Using it to augment without it fully taking over your workflow is tough.
I don't follow. LLMs spotted these bugs in the first place. You seem to be saying that these discoveries are indications that they're bad for vulnerability discovery.
From what I understand, the copy fail bug was found by researcher who noticed something weird and then using AI to scan the codebase for instances where that becomes a problem.
I bet that with a slightly looser prompt/harness, the LLM could have found these twin bugs too.
Yet at the same time, I also think that if the human researcher had manually scanned the code, he'd have noticed these bugs too.
FWIW I do think LLMs are great tools for finding vulnerabilities in general. Just that they were visibly not optimally applied in this case.
I don't think the copy.fail people understood the issue they found, as is evident by the heavy focus on AF_ALG/aead_algif, which is essentially "innocent" as we're seeing here.
I think LLMs are great for vulnerability discovery, but you need to not skimp on the legwork and understanding what even you just found there.
It's an AI security firm! You might just as productively ask "why did all the other engineers who ever looked at this code not find it, and why was Theori the one to actually surface it?".
I’m hardly going to simp for LLM tools but the fact that the bug existed and no one had reported it seems proof positive no one was about to find it without them
No, they did not. Careful of falling for the psychosis.
> This finding was AI-assisted, but began with an insight from Theori researcher Taeyang Lee, who was studying how the Linux crypto subsystem interacts with page-cache-backed data.
You appear to want to die on the hill of "This vulnerability would never have been found if we lived in a world without LLM AI" which is a very strange hill to die on.
There's no question that we live in the world where LLM AI was involved in finding the copy fail vulnerability at this specific time, and it's completely normal for people to see a vulnerability and then look closer and find related vulnerabilities or a deeper root cause, but there's no need to adopt an extreme "without AI LLM we don't find these vulnerabilities" position.
It's weird to say I want to "die on this hill" because that's not even something I believe. There was nothing especially difficult about this particular vulnerability. My only observation that nobody did find it before, then an LLM security firm went out looking for Linux LPEs, and thus it was discovered.
That is a very difficult fact pattern to which to attach the conclusion "LLMs have sabotaged security research" (my paraphrase).
The finding started with human intuition and was assisted by an LLM. You can yell "AI sec firm" 1000 times. A human got it started. You shouldn't die on that hill.
Germane or not the knee-jerk reactions related to LLMs are getting ridiculous and it seems like it’s the same people throwing down at a moments notice and then chalking it up to a misunderstanding.
> When your workflow consists of asking questions and getting answers immediately, you don't get to see what's nearby.
That's why is very very important to just step out and use saved time to go for a walk, to a park, sit on a bench, listen do birds, close eyes and zoom out.
These are all page cache poisoning attacks (dirtyfrag, copyfail, dirtypipe). Maybe the page cache should have defense-in-depth measures for SUID binaries?
splice is documented to return EBADF if "One or both file descriptors are not valid, or do not have proper read-write mode."
So it seems surprising to me that you can call it when the out fd is not writable? But I didn't retain the information about the vulnerability, so I'm missing something. There was something about copy on write, IIRC?
"proper read-write mode" for the input fd is reading only. The exploit is writing to the splice() input fd.
Also, NB, I said permission check, not mode check. The input fd to splice can and will be open for only reading quite often. Doesn't mean the kernel can't still do a write permission check.
(Except I didn't say that here. Oops. Getting confused with my posts.)
OK, I may likely have too much sleep debt to understand, but given the bug is that splice can write to the input fd, you're suggesting maybe splice should only let you use an input fd if the process has access to write to it?
But splice is a more or less a generalization of sendfile, and sendfile is often used for webserving where the serving process does not have ownership of the documents it is serving. It doesn't make sense to limit splice such that it can't do the task it was built for. Maybe splice should just not write to the input fd? :P
True! Building protections (e.g. physical pages in the page cache are not writeable 100% of the time) just for executables has of course countless circumventions as well (e.g. config files). Yeah, there is probably not that much to be done there, actually. Looking at some of the diffs it seems to me like the kernel makes it really not particularly obvious when/how this goes wrong. E.g. the patch for this is to look at an additional flag on the socket buffer to fix an arbitrary page cache write. This feels rather action at a distance. Logically this of course makes sense, the whole point of splice et al is to feed data from one file-like into another file-like, whatever those ends might be. That erases the underlying provenance of the data.
"Copy Fail was the motivation for starting this research. In particular, xfrm-ESP Page-Cache Write in the Dirty Frag vulnerability chain shares the same sink as Copy Fail. However, it is triggered regardless of whether the algif_aead module is available. In other words, even on systems where the publicly known Copy Fail mitigation (algif_aead blacklist) is applied, your Linux is still vulnerable to Dirty Frag."
mitigation (i have not tested or verified!):
"Because the responsible disclosure schedule and the embargo have been broken, no patch exists for any distribution. Use the following command to remove the modules in which the vulnerabilities occur."
"sudo" in "sudo echo 3 > /prox/sys/vm/drop_caches" does not do anything because only runs echo, not the write.
And if a machine is already exploited, it's too late to do just that. You need to rebuild the whole disk image because anything on it could be compromised.
>And if a machine is already exploited, it's too late to do just that. You need to rebuild the whole disk image because anything on it could be compromised.
this is more targeted at the people who run the PoC to see if their machine is vulnerable.
just transcribing some relevant stuff from https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag/issues/1 so that people visiting this thread dont need to poke around a bunch of different places.
Is there any additional info on where it was "published publicly by an unrelated third party"? From the timeline in the writeup:
> 2026-05-07: Submitted detailed information about the vulnerability and the exploit to the linux-distros mailing list. The embargo was set to 5 days, with an agreement that if a third party publishes the exploit on the internet during the embargo period, the Dirty Frag exploit would be published publicly.
> 2026-05-07: Detailed information and the exploit for this vulnerability were published publicly by an unrelated third party, breaking the embargo.
Edit: nevermind, details are further down in the thread:
And I ask again: why the f*ck is algif_aead getting all the flak for copy.fail? It's authencesn being stupid.
authencesn didn't get fixed. Now we got the results of that, turns out you can access the same (I believe) out of bounds write through plain network sockets.
I wish I thought of that, but I didn't.
[ed.: I'm referring to the through-ESP issue. The RxRPC one is AIUI completely unrelated.]
If this indeed works on all major distributions, I just continue to be amazed by how irresponsible the maintainers are. We're talking about optional kernel functionality that's presumably useful to something like <0.1% of their userbase, but is enabled by default?... why?
This feels like the practice of Linux distros back in 1999 when they'd ship default installs with dozens of network services exposed to the internet. Except it's not 1999 anymore.
Distro maintainers blacklisting specific functionality because they believe YAGNI is a pretty big ask. They just don't know who is using what. It's always possible for users to go back and tailor their builds for the stuff they actually want.
And... I remember the early days of Linux where I ran `make menuconfig` and selected exactly the functionality I wanted in my kernel. I'd... rather not end up back there.
That said a target for an easy win here is RHEL, which compiles a lot of modules into the kernel rather than leaving them as loadable modules, so the mitigation for e.g. copy fail was impossible. Maybe they could do with a few less of those?
You can make precisely the same argument for network services. Who knows, maybe you need telnet and UUCP and NFS and ftpd running on your system?... why should the distro maintainer decide?
Well, because you probably don't, and it's a security risk, so no need to put millions at risk for the benefit of that one person who wants to tinker with packet radio or whatever. Similarly, it would be prudent for distros to not allow autoloading of modules that are extremely niche while giving a simple way to adjust the settings if you want to. God knows they have plenty of GUI configurators and config files already.
There is no way to disable components you think users won't use and not make it incredibly difficult to use the system. I personally would have no way to know what to enable or not enable based on what I want to do, and I've been using this stupid OS for 25 years.
Linux distro maintainers are the most responsible software maintainers on the planet. Their security practices are miles beyond the stupid programming language package managers, they maintain a select list of packages, vet changes, patch bugs, resolve complex packaging issues, backport fixes, use tiered releases, distribute files to global mirrors, and cryptographically validate all files. And might I remind you, they do all this for free.
In many ways non mobile computers are very much still stuck in 1999. Android is significantly more secure than other Linux systems because it's much younger and had the chance to integrate mandatory access control into the entire stack.
It’s not enabled by default. It’s an optional module that is loaded on demand. The entire setup of the kernel promotes compiling in the core set of things your users will need and offering basically everything else as a module to load on demand.
This is a pedantry for the sake of it. If it's present by default and an attacker can trivially cause it to be loaded, it's the same as "on by default".
This is "a service that automatically starts". That's what automatic kernel module loading is for!
It's not any different from putting an always-running network service behind socket activation instead. The security boundary/risk is nearly identical between the two.
The GP you were replying to mentioned a vulnerability "present by default and an attacker can trivially cause it to be loaded".
You responded contrasting a network service with an administrator-loadable module.
This is neither of those. It's an LPE, not a remote exploit. It doesn't require an administrator (root) to load anything. In context of this vuln, it's exactly analogous to socket activation. The scope of an LPE vuln is local; yes. What does that have to do with the rest of your comments?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
I originally replied to a comment saying "This feels like the practice of Linux distros back in 1999 when they'd ship default installs with dozens of network services exposed to the internet". It is not like that.
Because in order to exploit this, you have to have direct access to the computer. Either through malicious usb device, or by exploiting some supply chain or a known piece of software that will be willingly or automatically installed, and furthermore you need to be able to essentially run arbitrary terminal commands, which is a huge breach of isolation in that software.
If an attacker manages to do all that, its already bad news for you. Escalation to root with this is the least of your worries at that point.
Is there any service that relies on Linux user separation or containers to separate different user accounts? I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to do that and the proper way is to run different instances in virtual machines.
You are assuming that LPE only applies to the user that holds all the sensitive stuff. But it also applies to users created specifically for isolation. Without LPE they would not have access to anything important even if they were compromised.
We could also wonder why XZ was linked to SSH... But only on systemd-enabled distros (which is a lot of them).
Just... Why?
And then make sure to call to incompetence, instead of malice and say non-sense like "Sure, it only factually affects systemd distros, but this is totally not related to systemd". All I saw though was a systemd backdoor (sorry, exploit).
Now regarding copy.fail that just happened: not all maintainers are irresponsible. And some have, rightfully, bragged that the security measures they preemptively took in their distros made them non vulnerable.
But yup I agree it's madness. Just why. And Ubuntu is a really bad offender: it's as if they did a "yes | .." pipe to configure every single modules as an include directly in the kernel.
"We take security seriously, look we've got the IPsec backdoor (sorry, exploit) modules directly in the kernel". "There's 'sec' in 'IPsec', so we're backdoored (sorry, secure)".
xz was not directly linked to ssh, and systemd itself was not providing the backdoor. The weakness is embedded into the architecture of glibc (which has spread to other systems like FreeBSD as well): https://github.com/robertdfrench/ifuncd-up
The entire argumentation here is ridiculous. There's a big jump from "IFUNC undermines RELRO" to "IFUNC is the issue". You could have gotten all but the same effect spawning a thread from a plain init or C++ constructor. No one should think that any relro, r^x or aslr or anything like this is going to deter anyone who can literally control the contents of the libraries which are linked in. They could, literally, spawn a copy of sshd with a patched config if necessary.
Considering AWS just released patches for Copy Fail for Amazon Linux and Bottlerocket only yesterday.... I imagine it will over a week before we see patches for this. This is especially important to fix on Kubernetes nodes...does anyone have any recommendations for mitigating this issue before a patch is released?
After all these years, we finally have enough eyeballs that all bugs are shallow, and it kinda sucks. How many times a week am I going to be updating my kernel from now on?
With physical access, root access is as simple as setting init=/bin/bash in the kernel parameters from a bootloader. No need for credentials or anything.
A link to the patch was posted in someone's X account. Someone else saw that and posted a working exploit in less than an hour (potentially exploited by an LLM, though other than the quick turnaround, claim not substantiated).
No embargo exists (or could possibly exist) in the first place.
Linux is open source, so every patch fixing the security bug is immediately visible to everyone. There is no workaround to that by the very design how the kernel is developed. The "embargo" people talking about is the rather stupid notion that if people keep their mouth shut and not write "THIS IS A LPE" straight in the patch description, everyone can pretend vulnerability is not leaked until the "official" message in the mailing list is sent.
This approach might have been defensible before, but in LLM era, when people have automated pipelines feeding diffs straight from the mailing lists to SotA models asking to identify probable security issues fixed by those, it is both stupid and dangerous.
My (novice) understanding is that embargoes are intended to provide time to 1) develop a patch and 2) distribute the patch.
For Linux/public open source, what you said is right about 2). Once the patch is visible to anyone, it's trivial to identify exploits for unpatched systems. But 1) is still a valid use-case for embargoes for Linux vulns, right? Like, if this patch had taken a few weeks to develop before being confirmed working and published, that's potentially valid grounds for not sharing details during that time (within reason), no?
They're asking the nature of the third party's discovery/publishing. Someone on the inside who decided to leak it anonymously? Someone else who was able to access some private communication they shouldn't have been able to see? Or a third party who happened to discover the same vulnerability (which seems less unlikely than normal since this is so similar to Copy Fail), but didn't follow disclosure procedures?
I think I read on the bug's website that "No fix has been released". I understood that as there is no public fix, but maybe it only means it's not in a tagged version of the kernel and no hotfixed distro kernels have been released?
The fix has been commited to the git tree for the `netdev` linux subsystem fork. That's how it was noticed by the grsecurity guy who published an exploit. Then, it will be merged by linus either into a RC/master for the next linux minor version release, or into the patch releases branch by GregKH/Sasha for already-released versions. Or in this case, both, because it's a security fix.
I was able to reproduce this issue on kernel 6.12.57+deb13-amd64 running Debian 13 (Trixie), but unable to reproduce it on kernel 6.1.0-42-amd64 running Debian 12 (Bookworm).
For anyone not on the security stream of Debian packages for Bookworm, kernel version 6.1.0-42-amd64 is actually immune to copy.fail. Surprising that it looks to be immune to dirtyfrag. If you haven't already patched on the security stream, you can choose any kernel version that kept commit 2b8bbc64b5c2. I am thinking that the same commit might accidentally be keeping certain Debian 12 kernel versions safe from dirtyfrag as well.
I assume because the rxrpc module is not loaded / provided and because unprivileged user namespaces are not allowed, which should be sufficient to mitigate. Curious if someone else has more details though.
The exploit as posted contains x86 shellcode, so you'd need to drop in the appropriate shellcode to test if it really works.
Android wasn't vulnerable the last time, so far it's been a shining beacon of hope for proper SELinux configuration that I wish was more widely available in other places.
Yes, it demonstrates that it's possible to harden well - at least for some cases. It appears depending on the environment hardened kernel / runtime environments are pretty much possible to have safeguards working today already.
SELinux will stop any process in android from loading kernel modules, that’s not allowed. The android permission model as a whole is ultimately backed by SELinux.
To solve the issue from the source, you need to enforce security through means like mandatory access control. The problem is that existing desktop and server systems are too mature for that to be practical, you'll have to rework almost everything and users will certainly reject it violently due to the breakages.
Not sure what specifically they're referring to, but Android (and iOS) add a lot of sandboxing to ensure that each application can only access its own files, can't access hardware willy-nilly (bluetooth, scanning wifi, etc), can only link against certain libraries, etc.
Imagine if Linux only let you run stuff from Flatpak, and if stuff didn't work in Flatpak then too bad for you. Most Linux users would hate it and it would be a mess a lot of the time, so, for user experience (UX) reasons, they don't do it. Android can get away with it because that's been the app paradigm for decades now.
Because Android is not Linux, as much as some pretend it is.
In fact, given the official public APIs, Google could replace the Linux kernel with a BSD, and userspace wouldn't notice, other than rooted devices, and the OEMs themselves baking their Android distro.
It absolutely is Linux, and yes the JVM could absolutely run on something else. But it is Linux and you can run Linux binaries directly on it - that just isn’t how it is used by end users.
No you cannot, the NDK has a specific set of oficial APIS, and the Android team feels in the right to kill any application that doesn't follow the law of Android land.
Some folks like the termux rebels, occasionally find out there is a sherif in town.
> As documented in the Android N behavioral changes, to protect Android users and apps from unforeseen crashes, Android N will restrict which libraries your C/C++ code can link against at runtime. As a result, if your app uses any private symbols from platform libraries, you will need to update it to either use the public NDK APIs or to include its own copy of those libraries. Some libraries are public: the NDK exposes libandroid, libc, libcamera2ndk, libdl, libGLES, libjnigraphics, liblog, libm, libmediandk, libOpenMAXAL, libOpenSLES, libstdc++, libvulkan, and libz as part of the NDK API. Other libraries are private, and Android N only allows access to them for platform HALs, system daemons, and the like. If you aren’t sure whether your app uses private libraries, you can immediately check it for warnings on the N Developer Preview.
What's amazing about Linux is that you don't have to use the system's libc, and you don't have to use dynamic linking.
That said, newer Androids use seccomp to restrict which syscalls you can use, basically to what bionic exposes anyway. This doesn't seem to affect Termux and friends, which can apparently run full X11 applications without root.
(edit) Notably, splice() is still callable, so maybe the POC needs to be tweaked...
That's all user space platform specifics, it has no relation to your previous statement where you said 'android is not linux'.
Someone can statically build a freestanding executable/so targetting arm64 linux (specifically the right android linux kernel version) and it will run fine on Android. The syscall interface, process model, file descriptors, signals, memory mapping, all of this is Linux, this is what people mean when they say Android is just Linux.
That's specific libraries, when using the default linker. You could construct that same behavior on desktop linux too. And you can avoid it equally well on Android - you can statically-link things just fine, you can use libraries you actually control, and presumably use a custom linker if desired. It's utterly non-surprising that "you run code you don't control" results in "said code...can do arbitrary things for unsupported use". (Never mind that, instead of a "sherif", they could've just renamed all private symbols, or just naturally replaced them over time, breaking your code all the same, just in a more confusing way)
Also some obligatory Linux vs GNU/Linux comment. (and it's not like GNU/Linux doesn't ever change under your feet - see the glibc DT_HASH debacle)
I got the same running it inside a container, but got a shell when running it directly in the host. This only shows that the exploit doesn't work inside a container. So, containers aren't vulnerable, or the script needs some adjustments to make it work in containers.
Just got an email from one HPC I have access in Germany. I guess all HPCs ans services like GH Actions are going to be offline for a bit. I think last time was on a Friday too, so it might be another Friday to organize emails, files, rotate backup/passwords...
What’s interesting here is that the exploit chain itself isn’t especially novel anymore — page cache corruption has become a recurring pattern (Dirty Pipe, Copy Fail, Dirty Frag). The worrying part is how quickly public patches are now being reverse-engineered into weaponized exploits.
The old “quiet patch before disclosure” model may simply not work anymore in the LLM era.
2026-04-29: Submitted detailed information about the rxrpc vulnerability and a weaponized exploit that achieves root privileges on Ubuntu to security@kernel.org.
2026-04-29: Submitted the patch for the rxrpc vulnerability to the netdev mailing list. Information about this issue was published publicly.
2026-05-07: Submitted detailed information about the vulnerability and the exploit to the linux-distros mailing list. The embargo was set to 5 days, with an agreement that if a third party publishes the exploit on the internet during the embargo period, the Dirty Frag exploit would be published publicly.
2026-05-07: Detailed information and the exploit for the esp vulnerability were published publicly by an unrelated third party, breaking the embargo.
2026-05-07: After obtaining agreement from distribution maintainers to fully disclose Dirty Frag, the entire Dirty Frag document was published.
The enforcement of read-only protection for pagecache pages (and the scatterlists and or other structures they point to) seems to be diffuse and incredibly fragile.
At present it looks to me like the embargo was broken by someone identifying the patch as fixing a vulnerability, not someone leaking the mailing list.
More information may come out, or I might be missing something, but assuming that the above is accurate, this isn't a problem with responsible disclosure or mailing list opsec; it's a problem with the nature of open source. Right? Or are folks seriously proposing that the patch/mitigations should have been circulated to distro maintainers privately before going to mainline?
Do you think with modern LLMs in a few years projects like Linux will have all those low-hanging security bugs fixed? Are we witnessing a transition period, or will nothing change?
LLMs don't matter, linux's codebase has been growing much faster than it can be secured so this is all inevitable.
Transitioning components to rust eliminates certain categories of bugs leaving the rest of the bugs to be dealt with.
We'd likely end up needing another language with stronger type and effect systems to eliminate more categories of bugs. Probably something which enforces linear types, capabilities, units of measure types, and effects.
And you'd have to update linux itself to switch to capabilities.
there's an argument to be made that new code will be inspected before being merged and therefore the classes of bugs an LLM is likely to find will not be merged until it's fixed.
With the exploits published as-is, you'll only get root inside the container: there's no explicit namespace break, and calling setuid() in a container just gives you root in the container.
However, it can be used to modify files that are passed into the container (e.g. Docker run -v), or files that are shared with other containers (e.g. other Docker containers sharing the same layers). kube-proxy with Kubernetes happens to share a trusted binary with containers by default, which is how it can be exploited: https://github.com/Percivalll/Copy-Fail-CVE-2026-31431-Kuber...
You don't need any setuid binaries. You could just as easily use the vulnerability to add a job to crontab(5) that causes the cron daemon to run whatever you want as root.
Anyone here with experience providing multi-tenant Linux systems (CI and the like), do providers usually disable kernel modules they don’t need to eliminate attack surface? Every time one of these comes out I wonder if I should be rotating every key in my GitHub CI or PaaS host. So far I haven’t seen any reports from the providers I use that they were pwned by any of these exploits.
Like others have said, this will get you root inside the container. It isn't a container escape. File/volume mounts shared across containers would be vulnerable.
Here's a general question, are these vulnerabilities hitting Linux more than BSDs due to hit being a larger target or because its architecture is less secure by design?
- more people are using it (assuming macos is in its own bucket perhaps)
- bigger surface areas (esp NetBSD has in my limited understanding just less stuff that can go boom)
- more churn, ie more new stuff than can be buggy released more often.
Of course, because of that, more eyes are on Linux, so I'm not sure where that security tradeoff is.
AFAIU, Linux and the BSDs have basically the same architecture - the BSDs just value secure and simple, understandable code more highly than Linux vs features and performance.
Linux 2.2 or 2.4 or so (possibly only Suse Linux) even had a kernel startup message "Unix compliance testing by UNIFIX" or something, back when Unix was considered more prestigious than Linux. It is / was by some official definition "a Unix", though not "UNIX the trademark by AT&T".
Unfortunately that is not what they proposed. To stretch the automotive analogy too far, you could say: if you invite a carjacker in, their seatbelt is not going to stop them from carjacking you.
Virtual machines are still the best design and has been for something like 20 years
Containers are good, as long as they all share the same purpose (read: same application, no multi-tenant)
We all know that multi-users systems (and thus, containers) have a very wide attack surface, while VM attack surface is very limited ..
This is why I am totally convinced that:
- redhat and friends are a terrible idea (licencing forces collocation which reduces segmentation)
- per-instance pricing (read: cloud public, but not only that) are terrible: for the same reason. Paying per consumed CPU/ram is sane, paying per VM unit is damageful
I agree with the general sentiment. I treat anything running arbitrary machine code as if it has full access to a machine. I don't know where you get "run your services as root" from that, though. The principle of least privilege doesn't just apply to running malicious code, but running buggy code whose attack surface is exposed to evil-doers.
Every time someone finds a universal Linux privilege escalation, somewhere a sysadmin whispers 'this is why we don't run as root' while nervously checking if their containers are actually isolated.
This attack class lets you escalate from any user to UID 0. Not running as root won't save you, in fact, this attack is for those processes not running as root.
However, if you are in a user namespace where UID 0 doesn't map to system-wide capabilities, and you dont share page cache for the setuid binaries on the system, this attack doesn't lead to LPE.
This is very similar in root cause and exploitation to Copy Fail.
Which illustrates pretty well something that's lost when relying heavily on LLMs to do work for you: exploration.
I find that doing vulnerability research using AI really hinders my creativity. When your workflow consists of asking questions and getting answers immediately, you don't get to see what's nearby. It's like a genie - you get exactly what you asked for and nothing more.
The researcher who discovered Copy Fail relied heavily on AI after noticing something fishy. If he had to manually wade through lots of code by himself, he would have many more chances to spot these twin bugs.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure that by using slightly less directed prompting, a frontier LLM would found these bugs for him too.
It's a very unusual case of negative synergy, where working together hurt performance.
No, unless I'm misreading it it's the *same* root cause: high 32 bits of Extended ESN in IPsec == authencesn module/cipher mode.
The wrong thing got fixed for copy.fail, because people jumped to blame AF_ALG.
[ed.: yes it's the same authencesn issue. https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag/blob/892d9a31d391b7f0fccb... it doesn't say authencesn in the code, only in a comment, but nonetheless, same issue.]
[ed.2: the RxRPC issue is separate, this is about the ESP one]
There are two vulnerabilities here.
The RxRPC one is definitely a different root cause (although caused by a very similar mistake).
For the ESP one it's a bit harder to tell. I don't think the wrong thing was fixed, just that there was a very similar bug in almost the same spot. Could be wrong about that though.
(you probably wrote this while I was editing my post.)
It's absolutely the same issue in authencesn/ESP. There's another one in RxRPC that is AIUI completely unrelated.
Or a follow up prompt: "find similar classes of bugs". Once the actual case has been layed out finding like bugs isn't too hard. I hear you on the creativity bit. Like any tool, AI can put blinders on. Using it to augment without it fully taking over your workflow is tough.
I don't follow. LLMs spotted these bugs in the first place. You seem to be saying that these discoveries are indications that they're bad for vulnerability discovery.
From what I understand, the copy fail bug was found by researcher who noticed something weird and then using AI to scan the codebase for instances where that becomes a problem.
I bet that with a slightly looser prompt/harness, the LLM could have found these twin bugs too.
Yet at the same time, I also think that if the human researcher had manually scanned the code, he'd have noticed these bugs too.
FWIW I do think LLMs are great tools for finding vulnerabilities in general. Just that they were visibly not optimally applied in this case.
They could also have found all these things at the same time - and are slow-rolling the disclosures.
I don't think the copy.fail people understood the issue they found, as is evident by the heavy focus on AF_ALG/aead_algif, which is essentially "innocent" as we're seeing here.
I think LLMs are great for vulnerability discovery, but you need to not skimp on the legwork and understanding what even you just found there.
Right but without the LLM the bug doesn't get found at all.
That's not necessarily true. Who's to say the security researchers wouldn't have found it if they'd searched the code manually?
It's an AI security firm! You might just as productively ask "why did all the other engineers who ever looked at this code not find it, and why was Theori the one to actually surface it?".
I’m hardly going to simp for LLM tools but the fact that the bug existed and no one had reported it seems proof positive no one was about to find it without them
It would have taken a LOT longer but often this kind of manual search is so tedious people just don't do it. LLMs don't get bored.
Yes, I agree. I'm not the GP poster.
No, they did not. Careful of falling for the psychosis.
> This finding was AI-assisted, but began with an insight from Theori researcher Taeyang Lee, who was studying how the Linux crypto subsystem interacts with page-cache-backed data.
https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions
Theori is an AI security research firm.
You appear to want to die on the hill of "This vulnerability would never have been found if we lived in a world without LLM AI" which is a very strange hill to die on.
There's no question that we live in the world where LLM AI was involved in finding the copy fail vulnerability at this specific time, and it's completely normal for people to see a vulnerability and then look closer and find related vulnerabilities or a deeper root cause, but there's no need to adopt an extreme "without AI LLM we don't find these vulnerabilities" position.
It's weird to say I want to "die on this hill" because that's not even something I believe. There was nothing especially difficult about this particular vulnerability. My only observation that nobody did find it before, then an LLM security firm went out looking for Linux LPEs, and thus it was discovered.
That is a very difficult fact pattern to which to attach the conclusion "LLMs have sabotaged security research" (my paraphrase).
The finding started with human intuition and was assisted by an LLM. You can yell "AI sec firm" 1000 times. A human got it started. You shouldn't die on that hill.
It seems as though this issue occurred to him, then he used their tool ("Xint Code") to analyze the codebase for instances of it.
I don’t think that’s what the OP is saying at all, just that using LLMs needs to be a cooperative research process.
Also I see you jumping around a lot to the defense of LLMs when I don’t think anyone is really attacking them. Maybe cool it a bit.
From the thread that ensued I feel comfortable that my interpretation of the comment (or rather, my confusion about it) was in fact germane.
Germane or not the knee-jerk reactions related to LLMs are getting ridiculous and it seems like it’s the same people throwing down at a moments notice and then chalking it up to a misunderstanding.
So like I said, just chill out.
It’s incredible humans spot stuff like this. I guess even more incredible that LLMs can do it!
It’s very hard to see a root vuln similar to, but not the same as, another discovered by AI, as a lesson about AI not exploring.
Is there a counterfactual where you would say it explored well enough, besides both vulnerabilities published as one?
Evidence or are you just riffing?
> When your workflow consists of asking questions and getting answers immediately, you don't get to see what's nearby.
That's why is very very important to just step out and use saved time to go for a walk, to a park, sit on a bench, listen do birds, close eyes and zoom out.
The state we are in is actually brilliant.
These are all page cache poisoning attacks (dirtyfrag, copyfail, dirtypipe). Maybe the page cache should have defense-in-depth measures for SUID binaries?
SUID mitigations have nothing to do with the vulnerability itself - just the exploit.
If there's a root cronjob that runs a world readable binary, you could modify it in the page cache and exploit it that way.
Modifying the page cache is a really strong primitive with countless ways to exploit it.
splice() should maybe generally refuse to operate on things you can't write to.
splice is documented to return EBADF if "One or both file descriptors are not valid, or do not have proper read-write mode."
So it seems surprising to me that you can call it when the out fd is not writable? But I didn't retain the information about the vulnerability, so I'm missing something. There was something about copy on write, IIRC?
"proper read-write mode" for the input fd is reading only. The exploit is writing to the splice() input fd.
Also, NB, I said permission check, not mode check. The input fd to splice can and will be open for only reading quite often. Doesn't mean the kernel can't still do a write permission check.
(Except I didn't say that here. Oops. Getting confused with my posts.)
OK, I may likely have too much sleep debt to understand, but given the bug is that splice can write to the input fd, you're suggesting maybe splice should only let you use an input fd if the process has access to write to it?
But splice is a more or less a generalization of sendfile, and sendfile is often used for webserving where the serving process does not have ownership of the documents it is serving. It doesn't make sense to limit splice such that it can't do the task it was built for. Maybe splice should just not write to the input fd? :P
[delayed]
Yes, it'd curtail splice() usage quite heavily. Maybe too much.
But apparently we can't be trusted with the page cache…
Maybe the kernel using supervisor-read-only flags could be made to work, only issue then is what happens if something does in fact need to write…
Aren’t you just saying “don’t write bugs?”
True! Building protections (e.g. physical pages in the page cache are not writeable 100% of the time) just for executables has of course countless circumventions as well (e.g. config files). Yeah, there is probably not that much to be done there, actually. Looking at some of the diffs it seems to me like the kernel makes it really not particularly obvious when/how this goes wrong. E.g. the patch for this is to look at an additional flag on the socket buffer to fix an arbitrary page cache write. This feels rather action at a distance. Logically this of course makes sense, the whole point of splice et al is to feed data from one file-like into another file-like, whatever those ends might be. That erases the underlying provenance of the data.
"Because the embargo has now been broken, no patches or CVEs exist for these vulnerabilities."
link: https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag
detailed writeup: https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag/blob/master/assets/write-...
importantly:
"Copy Fail was the motivation for starting this research. In particular, xfrm-ESP Page-Cache Write in the Dirty Frag vulnerability chain shares the same sink as Copy Fail. However, it is triggered regardless of whether the algif_aead module is available. In other words, even on systems where the publicly known Copy Fail mitigation (algif_aead blacklist) is applied, your Linux is still vulnerable to Dirty Frag."
mitigation (i have not tested or verified!):
"Because the responsible disclosure schedule and the embargo have been broken, no patch exists for any distribution. Use the following command to remove the modules in which the vulnerabilities occur."
conversation around the mitigation suggests you need a reboot or run this after the above on already-exploited machines:"sudo" in "sudo echo 3 > /prox/sys/vm/drop_caches" does not do anything because only runs echo, not the write.
And if a machine is already exploited, it's too late to do just that. You need to rebuild the whole disk image because anything on it could be compromised.
>And if a machine is already exploited, it's too late to do just that. You need to rebuild the whole disk image because anything on it could be compromised.
this is more targeted at the people who run the PoC to see if their machine is vulnerable.
just transcribing some relevant stuff from https://github.com/V4bel/dirtyfrag/issues/1 so that people visiting this thread dont need to poke around a bunch of different places.
You can't sudo echo and redirect from the non-sudo shell like that.
or Also fixed your typo in /proc...Also try:
Or more simply, use
echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
thanks. copy pasting from the github via my phone, and should have taken the extra few mins
No worries, overall a very useful summary comment.
Is there any additional info on where it was "published publicly by an unrelated third party"? From the timeline in the writeup:
> 2026-05-07: Submitted detailed information about the vulnerability and the exploit to the linux-distros mailing list. The embargo was set to 5 days, with an agreement that if a third party publishes the exploit on the internet during the embargo period, the Dirty Frag exploit would be published publicly.
> 2026-05-07: Detailed information and the exploit for this vulnerability were published publicly by an unrelated third party, breaking the embargo.
Edit: nevermind, details are further down in the thread:
https://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/05/07/12
And
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48055863
Just FYI, you can also mitigate it with `echo 1 > ...`; you don't need to drop everything, dropping `1` clears the page cache and that's enough.
Tested locally on Ubuntu 26.04:
1. Ran the exploit and got root
2. Configured the mitigations
3. Ran `su` again with no parameters and immediately got root again unprompted
4. Cleared the page cache
5. `su` asked for a password
And I ask again: why the f*ck is algif_aead getting all the flak for copy.fail? It's authencesn being stupid.
authencesn didn't get fixed. Now we got the results of that, turns out you can access the same (I believe) out of bounds write through plain network sockets.
I wish I thought of that, but I didn't.
[ed.: I'm referring to the through-ESP issue. The RxRPC one is AIUI completely unrelated.]
If this indeed works on all major distributions, I just continue to be amazed by how irresponsible the maintainers are. We're talking about optional kernel functionality that's presumably useful to something like <0.1% of their userbase, but is enabled by default?... why?
This feels like the practice of Linux distros back in 1999 when they'd ship default installs with dozens of network services exposed to the internet. Except it's not 1999 anymore.
Distro maintainers blacklisting specific functionality because they believe YAGNI is a pretty big ask. They just don't know who is using what. It's always possible for users to go back and tailor their builds for the stuff they actually want.
And... I remember the early days of Linux where I ran `make menuconfig` and selected exactly the functionality I wanted in my kernel. I'd... rather not end up back there.
That said a target for an easy win here is RHEL, which compiles a lot of modules into the kernel rather than leaving them as loadable modules, so the mitigation for e.g. copy fail was impossible. Maybe they could do with a few less of those?
You can make precisely the same argument for network services. Who knows, maybe you need telnet and UUCP and NFS and ftpd running on your system?... why should the distro maintainer decide?
Well, because you probably don't, and it's a security risk, so no need to put millions at risk for the benefit of that one person who wants to tinker with packet radio or whatever. Similarly, it would be prudent for distros to not allow autoloading of modules that are extremely niche while giving a simple way to adjust the settings if you want to. God knows they have plenty of GUI configurators and config files already.
The thing is that we could simply split those modules into separate packages
No reason why you couldn’t just `dnf install -y kmod-rxrpc` if for whatever reason you need that.
Now I think about it, it's kinda weird if non-root users can cause kernel modules to get loaded, without any hardware changes having happened.
If the kernel modules for esp4, esp6 and rxrpc aren't loaded - how is it that a non-root attacker can cause them to get loaded?
Don't disagree, but there are eBPF mitigations that work as alternatives to unloading kernel modules.
>Distro maintainers blacklisting specific functionality because they believe YAGNI is a pretty big ask
We have forgotten what a distro is, and its modern corruption of the concept is now taken as the definition.
Distributions weren't meant to be competing generic universal bundles of userspace tools in addition to the kernel.
There is no way to disable components you think users won't use and not make it incredibly difficult to use the system. I personally would have no way to know what to enable or not enable based on what I want to do, and I've been using this stupid OS for 25 years.
Linux distro maintainers are the most responsible software maintainers on the planet. Their security practices are miles beyond the stupid programming language package managers, they maintain a select list of packages, vet changes, patch bugs, resolve complex packaging issues, backport fixes, use tiered releases, distribute files to global mirrors, and cryptographically validate all files. And might I remind you, they do all this for free.
In many ways non mobile computers are very much still stuck in 1999. Android is significantly more secure than other Linux systems because it's much younger and had the chance to integrate mandatory access control into the entire stack.
Unless your Android doesn’t get any security updates anymore.
https://durovscode.com/google-android-security-update-warnin...
It’s not enabled by default. It’s an optional module that is loaded on demand. The entire setup of the kernel promotes compiling in the core set of things your users will need and offering basically everything else as a module to load on demand.
This is a pedantry for the sake of it. If it's present by default and an attacker can trivially cause it to be loaded, it's the same as "on by default".
> This is a pedantry for the sake of it.
Par for the course for HN.
It’s radically different than on by default.
Having a service that automatically starts and listens on the network is radically different from having a module that a local administrator can load.
If you want to block module loads, you’re one sysctl flag away.
> having a module that a local administrator can load
This is a successful local privilege escalation, so local administrator privs were not needed. In default configuration of all distros, apparently.
> If you want to block module loads, you’re one sysctl flag away.
The modules aren't really the point, it's that unnecessary features (to 99% of us?) were accessible by default without privs.
This is "a service that automatically starts". That's what automatic kernel module loading is for!
It's not any different from putting an always-running network service behind socket activation instead. The security boundary/risk is nearly identical between the two.
One is remotely accessible. The other is locally accessible.
The GP you were replying to mentioned a vulnerability "present by default and an attacker can trivially cause it to be loaded".
You responded contrasting a network service with an administrator-loadable module.
This is neither of those. It's an LPE, not a remote exploit. It doesn't require an administrator (root) to load anything. In context of this vuln, it's exactly analogous to socket activation. The scope of an LPE vuln is local; yes. What does that have to do with the rest of your comments?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
I originally replied to a comment saying "This feels like the practice of Linux distros back in 1999 when they'd ship default installs with dozens of network services exposed to the internet". It is not like that.
How would the attacker cause one of these modules to get loaded without already having root?
Trivially. Kernel modules autoload through various unprivileged mechanisms.
Because in order to exploit this, you have to have direct access to the computer. Either through malicious usb device, or by exploiting some supply chain or a known piece of software that will be willingly or automatically installed, and furthermore you need to be able to essentially run arbitrary terminal commands, which is a huge breach of isolation in that software.
If an attacker manages to do all that, its already bad news for you. Escalation to root with this is the least of your worries at that point.
Like someone else below posted, https://xkcd.com/1200/
People need to understand what the vulnerability actually is before freaking out about it.
So a threat actor buys access to a managed kubernetes service, or other linux-based shared hosting platform, and now they have access to the computer.
Hell, GitHub Actions would do.
Is there any service that relies on Linux user separation or containers to separate different user accounts? I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to do that and the proper way is to run different instances in virtual machines.
Right, you're not supposed to do that...
You are assuming that LPE only applies to the user that holds all the sensitive stuff. But it also applies to users created specifically for isolation. Without LPE they would not have access to anything important even if they were compromised.
> ... but is enabled by default?... why?
We could also wonder why XZ was linked to SSH... But only on systemd-enabled distros (which is a lot of them).
Just... Why?
And then make sure to call to incompetence, instead of malice and say non-sense like "Sure, it only factually affects systemd distros, but this is totally not related to systemd". All I saw though was a systemd backdoor (sorry, exploit).
Now regarding copy.fail that just happened: not all maintainers are irresponsible. And some have, rightfully, bragged that the security measures they preemptively took in their distros made them non vulnerable.
But yup I agree it's madness. Just why. And Ubuntu is a really bad offender: it's as if they did a "yes | .." pipe to configure every single modules as an include directly in the kernel.
"We take security seriously, look we've got the IPsec backdoor (sorry, exploit) modules directly in the kernel". "There's 'sec' in 'IPsec', so we're backdoored (sorry, secure)".
xz was not directly linked to ssh, and systemd itself was not providing the backdoor. The weakness is embedded into the architecture of glibc (which has spread to other systems like FreeBSD as well): https://github.com/robertdfrench/ifuncd-up
The entire argumentation here is ridiculous. There's a big jump from "IFUNC undermines RELRO" to "IFUNC is the issue". You could have gotten all but the same effect spawning a thread from a plain init or C++ constructor. No one should think that any relro, r^x or aslr or anything like this is going to deter anyone who can literally control the contents of the libraries which are linked in. They could, literally, spawn a copy of sshd with a patched config if necessary.
Sure, but distros not using systemd were not affected.
Considering AWS just released patches for Copy Fail for Amazon Linux and Bottlerocket only yesterday.... I imagine it will over a week before we see patches for this. This is especially important to fix on Kubernetes nodes...does anyone have any recommendations for mitigating this issue before a patch is released?
After all these years, we finally have enough eyeballs that all bugs are shallow, and it kinda sucks. How many times a week am I going to be updating my kernel from now on?
So you think someone is going to break into your house, find your default credentials somehow and get root access?
With physical access, root access is as simple as setting init=/bin/bash in the kernel parameters from a bootloader. No need for credentials or anything.
Secure boot and disk enryption are not that unusual nowdays
I'm curious what broke the embargo. Did it leak or did a third party find it independently?
A link to the patch was posted in someone's X account. Someone else saw that and posted a working exploit in less than an hour (potentially exploited by an LLM, though other than the quick turnaround, claim not substantiated).
https://x.com/encrypted_past/status/2052409822998392962
No embargo exists (or could possibly exist) in the first place.
Linux is open source, so every patch fixing the security bug is immediately visible to everyone. There is no workaround to that by the very design how the kernel is developed. The "embargo" people talking about is the rather stupid notion that if people keep their mouth shut and not write "THIS IS A LPE" straight in the patch description, everyone can pretend vulnerability is not leaked until the "official" message in the mailing list is sent.
This approach might have been defensible before, but in LLM era, when people have automated pipelines feeding diffs straight from the mailing lists to SotA models asking to identify probable security issues fixed by those, it is both stupid and dangerous.
My (novice) understanding is that embargoes are intended to provide time to 1) develop a patch and 2) distribute the patch.
For Linux/public open source, what you said is right about 2). Once the patch is visible to anyone, it's trivial to identify exploits for unpatched systems. But 1) is still a valid use-case for embargoes for Linux vulns, right? Like, if this patch had taken a few weeks to develop before being confirmed working and published, that's potentially valid grounds for not sharing details during that time (within reason), no?
it was published publicly by an unrelated third party
They're asking the nature of the third party's discovery/publishing. Someone on the inside who decided to leak it anonymously? Someone else who was able to access some private communication they shouldn't have been able to see? Or a third party who happened to discover the same vulnerability (which seems less unlikely than normal since this is so similar to Copy Fail), but didn't follow disclosure procedures?
The commit for the fix was public. Someone noticed. An exploit was published.
I think I read on the bug's website that "No fix has been released". I understood that as there is no public fix, but maybe it only means it's not in a tagged version of the kernel and no hotfixed distro kernels have been released?
The patch was posted to the kernel mailing list; someone saw the e-mail, read the patch, figured it out, and published an exploit very soon after.
The fix has been commited to the git tree for the `netdev` linux subsystem fork. That's how it was noticed by the grsecurity guy who published an exploit. Then, it will be merged by linus either into a RC/master for the next linux minor version release, or into the patch releases branch by GregKH/Sasha for already-released versions. Or in this case, both, because it's a security fix.
Spender didn't publish any exploit afaik
Oh you're right, it was this guy (_SiCk / @encrypted_past) who replied to his post
https://xcancel.com/encrypted_past/status/205240982299839296... https://xcancel.com/encrypted_past https://github.com/0xdeadbeefnetwork https://github.com/0xdeadbeefnetwork/Copy_Fail2-Electric_Boo...
Following disclosure procedures? The main cause that kills the need to take security seriously.
Does anyone know whether Debian is vulnerable? I tried the exploit on a Debian 12+Debian 13 machine but wasn't able to reproduce it myself.
I was able to reproduce this issue on kernel 6.12.57+deb13-amd64 running Debian 13 (Trixie), but unable to reproduce it on kernel 6.1.0-42-amd64 running Debian 12 (Bookworm).
For anyone not on the security stream of Debian packages for Bookworm, kernel version 6.1.0-42-amd64 is actually immune to copy.fail. Surprising that it looks to be immune to dirtyfrag. If you haven't already patched on the security stream, you can choose any kernel version that kept commit 2b8bbc64b5c2. I am thinking that the same commit might accidentally be keeping certain Debian 12 kernel versions safe from dirtyfrag as well.
I just tried the exploit on a fresh Debian 13 droplet on digitalocean and it worked.
I tested on a fully up-to-date Debian 13 and the exploit works. The mitigation also works / confirmed.
We need an easy way to ensure that only kernel modules in an whitelist can load. I’m tired of blacklisting modules I never need.
This again does not work under Android, at least in termux compiled with clang/gcc.
I assume because the rxrpc module is not loaded / provided and because unprivileged user namespaces are not allowed, which should be sufficient to mitigate. Curious if someone else has more details though.
The exploit as posted contains x86 shellcode, so you'd need to drop in the appropriate shellcode to test if it really works.
Android wasn't vulnerable the last time, so far it's been a shining beacon of hope for proper SELinux configuration that I wish was more widely available in other places.
Android has a lot of hardening and sandboxing that desktop Linux doesn't (and won't for UX reasons).
Yes, it demonstrates that it's possible to harden well - at least for some cases. It appears depending on the environment hardened kernel / runtime environments are pretty much possible to have safeguards working today already.
Android has other problems
https://durovscode.com/google-android-security-update-warnin...
> desktop Linux doesn't (and won't for UX reasons)
Can you elaborate?
A very comprehensive SELinux deployment for one.
SELinux will stop any process in android from loading kernel modules, that’s not allowed. The android permission model as a whole is ultimately backed by SELinux.
To solve the issue from the source, you need to enforce security through means like mandatory access control. The problem is that existing desktop and server systems are too mature for that to be practical, you'll have to rework almost everything and users will certainly reject it violently due to the breakages.
Not sure what specifically they're referring to, but Android (and iOS) add a lot of sandboxing to ensure that each application can only access its own files, can't access hardware willy-nilly (bluetooth, scanning wifi, etc), can only link against certain libraries, etc.
Imagine if Linux only let you run stuff from Flatpak, and if stuff didn't work in Flatpak then too bad for you. Most Linux users would hate it and it would be a mess a lot of the time, so, for user experience (UX) reasons, they don't do it. Android can get away with it because that's been the app paradigm for decades now.
Because Android is not Linux, as much as some pretend it is.
In fact, given the official public APIs, Google could replace the Linux kernel with a BSD, and userspace wouldn't notice, other than rooted devices, and the OEMs themselves baking their Android distro.
It absolutely is Linux, and yes the JVM could absolutely run on something else. But it is Linux and you can run Linux binaries directly on it - that just isn’t how it is used by end users.
The JVM has nothing to do with Android. There is no JVM running android apps.
There was Dalvik VM at one point but now it’s just the Android Runtime.
No you cannot, the NDK has a specific set of oficial APIS, and the Android team feels in the right to kill any application that doesn't follow the law of Android land.
Some folks like the termux rebels, occasionally find out there is a sherif in town.
> As documented in the Android N behavioral changes, to protect Android users and apps from unforeseen crashes, Android N will restrict which libraries your C/C++ code can link against at runtime. As a result, if your app uses any private symbols from platform libraries, you will need to update it to either use the public NDK APIs or to include its own copy of those libraries. Some libraries are public: the NDK exposes libandroid, libc, libcamera2ndk, libdl, libGLES, libjnigraphics, liblog, libm, libmediandk, libOpenMAXAL, libOpenSLES, libstdc++, libvulkan, and libz as part of the NDK API. Other libraries are private, and Android N only allows access to them for platform HALs, system daemons, and the like. If you aren’t sure whether your app uses private libraries, you can immediately check it for warnings on the N Developer Preview.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/improving-...
These stable APIs,
https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis
What's amazing about Linux is that you don't have to use the system's libc, and you don't have to use dynamic linking.
That said, newer Androids use seccomp to restrict which syscalls you can use, basically to what bionic exposes anyway. This doesn't seem to affect Termux and friends, which can apparently run full X11 applications without root.
(edit) Notably, splice() is still callable, so maybe the POC needs to be tweaked...
That's all user space platform specifics, it has no relation to your previous statement where you said 'android is not linux'.
Someone can statically build a freestanding executable/so targetting arm64 linux (specifically the right android linux kernel version) and it will run fine on Android. The syscall interface, process model, file descriptors, signals, memory mapping, all of this is Linux, this is what people mean when they say Android is just Linux.
That's specific libraries, when using the default linker. You could construct that same behavior on desktop linux too. And you can avoid it equally well on Android - you can statically-link things just fine, you can use libraries you actually control, and presumably use a custom linker if desired. It's utterly non-surprising that "you run code you don't control" results in "said code...can do arbitrary things for unsupported use". (Never mind that, instead of a "sherif", they could've just renamed all private symbols, or just naturally replaced them over time, breaking your code all the same, just in a more confusing way)
Also some obligatory Linux vs GNU/Linux comment. (and it's not like GNU/Linux doesn't ever change under your feet - see the glibc DT_HASH debacle)
https://www.androidpolice.com/google-support-linux-kernels-a...
Google relies on Linux LTS kernels. When the Linux LTS team dropped support from 6 years down to 2 years, Google stepped in to cover the 4-year gap.
It is Linux. It's basically a distro.
- Waydroid
- Is totally Linux
Ran as a fresh new default user in a ubuntu:latest container
Result: Good news!Wouldn't count on container being a reliable testing platform for this. Loads of stuff - legitimate or otherwise - fails in containers
I got the same running it inside a container, but got a shell when running it directly in the host. This only shows that the exploit doesn't work inside a container. So, containers aren't vulnerable, or the script needs some adjustments to make it work in containers.
Since copy fail can be used to escape containers (https://github.com/Percivalll/Copy-Fail-CVE-2026-31431-Kuber...), I'm guessing the exploit needs some changes only.
Just got an email from one HPC I have access in Germany. I guess all HPCs ans services like GH Actions are going to be offline for a bit. I think last time was on a Friday too, so it might be another Friday to organize emails, files, rotate backup/passwords...
So if I understand correctly 3 modules are involved:
- esp4 (kernel config "CONFIG_AF_RXRPC")
- esp6 (kernel config "CONFIG_INET_ESP")
- rxrpc (kernel config "CONFIG_INET6_ESP")
Is this correct?
You mixed up the names vs. config options but yes killing those 3 options should make you "safe". No warranty.
damn you're right, thx
What’s interesting here is that the exploit chain itself isn’t especially novel anymore — page cache corruption has become a recurring pattern (Dirty Pipe, Copy Fail, Dirty Frag). The worrying part is how quickly public patches are now being reverse-engineered into weaponized exploits.
The old “quiet patch before disclosure” model may simply not work anymore in the LLM era.
> The old “quiet patch before disclosure” model may simply not work anymore in the LLM era.
It never did. Trawling the Linux commit history is a tried and true method for finding n-days.
Disclosure Timeline
2026-04-29: Submitted detailed information about the rxrpc vulnerability and a weaponized exploit that achieves root privileges on Ubuntu to security@kernel.org.
2026-04-29: Submitted the patch for the rxrpc vulnerability to the netdev mailing list. Information about this issue was published publicly.
2026-05-07: Submitted detailed information about the vulnerability and the exploit to the linux-distros mailing list. The embargo was set to 5 days, with an agreement that if a third party publishes the exploit on the internet during the embargo period, the Dirty Frag exploit would be published publicly.
2026-05-07: Detailed information and the exploit for the esp vulnerability were published publicly by an unrelated third party, breaking the embargo.
2026-05-07: After obtaining agreement from distribution maintainers to fully disclose Dirty Frag, the entire Dirty Frag document was published.
7 days from disclosure to publishing a how-to guide to get root to the entire planet doesn't scream "responsible" disclosure to me.
Its not the reporter's fault that other people broke the embargo.
They don't have to publish a working exploit as soon as the embargo is broken, though.
Perhaps, but if the exploit code is published folks can double-check that they implemented the mitigations properly.
If there's no PoC, how can you really be sure?
An exploit was already published.
anyone who will use the exploit maliciously will immediately and trivially be able to create a working exploit.
Why not? There has already been a working exploit floating around, at least now it comes from an authoritative source.
My immediate reaction was the same.
But this is very similar to Copy Fail, and I'm assuming there was an assumption that others might also discover this soon as well. Hence the urgency.
At least that's my charitable interpretation.
WTF cares? Publish them without disclosure is the true way, otherwise noone would care about security and your data.
The enforcement of read-only protection for pagecache pages (and the scatterlists and or other structures they point to) seems to be diffuse and incredibly fragile.
If you don't need it (rootless containers), you can disable unprivileged userns to block these two:
May also break sandboxes (e.g. browser) though.Tested Amazon Linux 2023 and it doesn't appear to be vulnerable in the default configuration. Would be interested if anyone finds anything different.
this is why you don't contact distro mailing list. responsible disclosure is dead.
At present it looks to me like the embargo was broken by someone identifying the patch as fixing a vulnerability, not someone leaking the mailing list.
More information may come out, or I might be missing something, but assuming that the above is accurate, this isn't a problem with responsible disclosure or mailing list opsec; it's a problem with the nature of open source. Right? Or are folks seriously proposing that the patch/mitigations should have been circulated to distro maintainers privately before going to mainline?
> Or are folks seriously proposing that the patch/mitigations should have been circulated to distro maintainers privately before going to mainline?
I always assumed that distro maintainers got early access to patches before going mainline but maybe that’s not true?
Do you think with modern LLMs in a few years projects like Linux will have all those low-hanging security bugs fixed? Are we witnessing a transition period, or will nothing change?
LLMs don't matter, linux's codebase has been growing much faster than it can be secured so this is all inevitable.
Transitioning components to rust eliminates certain categories of bugs leaving the rest of the bugs to be dealt with.
We'd likely end up needing another language with stronger type and effect systems to eliminate more categories of bugs. Probably something which enforces linear types, capabilities, units of measure types, and effects.
And you'd have to update linux itself to switch to capabilities.
New vulns are introduced to Linux every day. Fuzzers trigger every single day on Linux. No, nothing will improve here from AI.
there's an argument to be made that new code will be inspected before being merged and therefore the classes of bugs an LLM is likely to find will not be merged until it's fixed.
There is a finite number of bugs and betters tools that find them mean there is less bugs in the code.
We already find bugs constantly in Linux and they go unaddressed, no one even keeps up with syzkaller reports lol
AI is neat because it's higher signal but yeah no, we're not getting anywhere close to "safe linux", AI or not.
From the 3rd party discloser:
https://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/05/07/12
Two distro independent LPEs in such a short time, if only all Linux software could be this portable.
Well this is getting tiresome. I wish there was a less stressful way to get fixes for such bugs. But the cat is out of the bag now.
Not criticizing whoever found the bug, of course.
Testing the rxrpc vuln on aarch64, I get a kernel data abort, which is interesting. Not looked into the root cause yet!
can this also be used to obtain container escape ?
If your container has setuid binaries and these modules are loaded, yes.
With the exploits published as-is, you'll only get root inside the container: there's no explicit namespace break, and calling setuid() in a container just gives you root in the container.
However, it can be used to modify files that are passed into the container (e.g. Docker run -v), or files that are shared with other containers (e.g. other Docker containers sharing the same layers). kube-proxy with Kubernetes happens to share a trusted binary with containers by default, which is how it can be exploited: https://github.com/Percivalll/Copy-Fail-CVE-2026-31431-Kuber...
It's poisoning the filesystem cache, if you don't have a setuid binary handy you just poison anything else that gets executed by the host.
You don't need any setuid binaries. You could just as easily use the vulnerability to add a job to crontab(5) that causes the cron daemon to run whatever you want as root.
And your containers need to have specific capabilities enabled, which aren't by default on kubernetes and podman.
Anyone here with experience providing multi-tenant Linux systems (CI and the like), do providers usually disable kernel modules they don’t need to eliminate attack surface? Every time one of these comes out I wonder if I should be rotating every key in my GitHub CI or PaaS host. So far I haven’t seen any reports from the providers I use that they were pwned by any of these exploits.
So umm... should I rush home and turn off all my computers?
Are they already vulnerable to RCE as an unprivileged user? Hopefully not.
An LPE only allows an attacker who can already execute code on the system to become root. So, bad, yes, but it doesn't mean you are immediately pwned.
Should I rush to Lambda or ECS and turn off all my containers sharing a host with who the hell knows?
Like others have said, this will get you root inside the container. It isn't a container escape. File/volume mounts shared across containers would be vulnerable.
For home computers, essentially https://xkcd.com/1200/ applies.
Tanenbaum was right
Go on...
Here's a general question, are these vulnerabilities hitting Linux more than BSDs due to hit being a larger target or because its architecture is less secure by design?
It’s two things. 1. Less eyes are on the bsds
2. Bsds don’t have the same optimizations that Linux has. Bsds generally try to pursue corrrectness
That being said there were just a bunch of vulnerabilities in freebsd
macOS has had its own dirty cow attack and I know there’s for sure more memory ones just based on the way the xnu kernel works.
So no Linux isn’t really worse per say
Larger target.
in many ways:
- more people are using it (assuming macos is in its own bucket perhaps) - bigger surface areas (esp NetBSD has in my limited understanding just less stuff that can go boom) - more churn, ie more new stuff than can be buggy released more often.
Of course, because of that, more eyes are on Linux, so I'm not sure where that security tradeoff is.
AFAIU, Linux and the BSDs have basically the same architecture - the BSDs just value secure and simple, understandable code more highly than Linux vs features and performance.
This is really not a correct statement beyond the fact that both are a type of Unix.
Linux is not Unix: it is not derived from AT&T Unix.
Linux 2.2 or 2.4 or so (possibly only Suse Linux) even had a kernel startup message "Unix compliance testing by UNIFIX" or something, back when Unix was considered more prestigious than Linux. It is / was by some official definition "a Unix", though not "UNIX the trademark by AT&T".
I’m fairly certain they’re referring to POSIX compatibility, not calling a Linux a Unix.
Oh damn, you are probably right.
What are the differences? I think of both as Unix-type sytems with macrokernels. I have no practical experience with BSDs.
Imagine how many undiscovered bugs and exploits exist in Windows.
Here we go again
Was the embargo ACTUALLY broken or is somebody just looking for attention?
>2026-05-07: After obtaining agreement from distribution maintainers to fully disclose Dirty Frag, the entire Dirty Frag document was published.
you think the reporters and the distribution maintainers colluded to... get 5 minutes of attention?
that would be exceptionally stupid of the distribution maintainers and destroy all trust.
Linux is a single user system and should be treated as such. Run your services as root. Don't rely on unix user primitives for security.
Running as root opens you up to a class of vulnerabilities (denial of service, mainly) that you can avoid by not running as root.
That said, running every process in its own micro VM is looking more attractive by the minute.
Half the point is that you should always assume that there exists a complete LPE bug.
But yes, micro VMs are a great idea!
Everything in this comment is wrong.
Technically yes. Practically, I disagree.
The part where you run everything as root is particularly stupid. But yes, user isolation has been weakened quite a bit.
This carries the same energy as "People will break into your car no matter what, so just leave your doors unlocked."
The energy here is "so don't leave anything valuable in your car".
Unfortunately that is not what they proposed. To stretch the automotive analogy too far, you could say: if you invite a carjacker in, their seatbelt is not going to stop them from carjacking you.
"Avoid shared-kernel attack surfaces" is not an unreasonable proposition in 2026.
It is very good practical advice.
It also saddens me greatly, imagining what computing could look like if systems evolved differently.
Virtual machines are still the best design and has been for something like 20 years
Containers are good, as long as they all share the same purpose (read: same application, no multi-tenant)
We all know that multi-users systems (and thus, containers) have a very wide attack surface, while VM attack surface is very limited ..
This is why I am totally convinced that:
You say that, but I know someone whose house had their front door kicked in by burglars even though it wasn't even locked.
I agree with the general sentiment. I treat anything running arbitrary machine code as if it has full access to a machine. I don't know where you get "run your services as root" from that, though. The principle of least privilege doesn't just apply to running malicious code, but running buggy code whose attack surface is exposed to evil-doers.
https://xkcd.com/1200/
Every time someone finds a universal Linux privilege escalation, somewhere a sysadmin whispers 'this is why we don't run as root' while nervously checking if their containers are actually isolated.
This attack class lets you escalate from any user to UID 0. Not running as root won't save you, in fact, this attack is for those processes not running as root.
However, if you are in a user namespace where UID 0 doesn't map to system-wide capabilities, and you dont share page cache for the setuid binaries on the system, this attack doesn't lead to LPE.
> this is why we don't run as root
The entire point is that you can escalate to root
Where is the famous Linux is so much secure than Windows?
I would like to see the same hate comments about Linux than the ones we would see if it was a Windows vulnerability...