CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-29111

CVE-2026-29111 — systemd: Local unprivileged user can trigger an assert

systemd, a system and service manager, (as PID 1) hits an assert and freezes execution when an unprivileged IPC API call is made with spurious data. On version v249 and older the effect is not an assert, but stack overwriting, with the attacker controlled content. From version v250 and newer this is not possible as the safety check causes an assert instead. This IPC call was added in v239, so versions older than that are not affected. Versions 260-rc1, 259.2, 258.5, and 257.11 contain patches. No known workarounds are available.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

systemd

systemd

CVSS base

5.5

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

systemd

Products (1)

systemd

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.5CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-269

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1548Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism

References

11 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • systemdevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-269other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.