CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumMemory Corruptionpublic exploit

CVE-2026-84270

CVE-2026-84270 — Gvfs: mtp: out-of-bounds read in do_read()

A flaw was found in the MTP backend in gvfs. When reading a file from a mounted MTP device, do_read() in gvfsbackendmtp.c trusts the data length returned by the device without limiting it to the original size requested by the client. If a malicious MTP device responds with more bytes than requested, this unrestricted length is passed directly to memcpy(). This causes the operation to read memory outside the intended boundaries. This allows an attacker who plugs in a malicious MTP device to cause a segmentation fault when a file is read and crash the gvfsd-mtp process, resulting in a denial of service.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Red Hat (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Red Hat

5 products listed

CVSS base

4.3

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-84270

fixed0affected48not affected0

workaround: To mitigate this vulnerability, do not connect untrusted or unknown MTP devices to the system.

no_fix_planned: Out of support scope

none_available: Fix deferred

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 10—Vulnerable
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 6—Vulnerable
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 7—Vulnerable
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8—Vulnerable
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9—Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Physical

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
4.3CVSS 3.1medium0.73.6Red Hat (CNA), GHSA, Red Hat (VEX)

CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

  • Read Memory
  • Bypass Protection Mechanism

Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read

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

CAPEC-537 · Infiltration of Hardware Development EnvironmentCAPEC-540 · Overread Buffers

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

2

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 2 public PoC repositories were reported.

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026

  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 4.3 (AV:P)

    Sep 1, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Sep 1, 2026 · NVD

  4. Reported to Red Hat.

    Sep 1, 2026 · Red Hat

  5. Added · GHSA-2rh6-86rx-p849 published (medium)

    Sep 1, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

  6. CVE published by MITRE.

    Sep 1, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

  7. Reported · Made public.

    Aug 3, 2026 · Red Hat

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-84270 is Gvfs: mtp: out-of-bounds read in do_read(), a medium vulnerability affecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 from Red Hat. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-84270. Public exploit evidence is: 2 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 4.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.