CVE-2026-4747
CVE-2026-4747 — Remote code execution via RPCSEC_GSS packet validation
Each RPCSEC_GSS data packet is validated by a routine which checks a signature in the packet. This routine copies a portion of the packet into a stack buffer, but fails to ensure that the buffer is sufficiently large, and a malicious client can trigger a stack overflow. Notably, this does not require the client to authenticate itself first. As kgssapi.ko's RPCSEC_GSS implementation is vulnerable, remote code execution in the kernel is possible by an authenticated user that is able to send packets to the kernel's NFS server while kgssapi.ko is loaded into the kernel. In userspace, applications which have librpcgss_sec loaded and run an RPC server are vulnerable to remote code execution from any client able to send it packets. We are not aware of any such applications in the FreeBSD base system.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, freebsd
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
2%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
8.8
HIGH
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
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)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-121
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Indexed by
References
3 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.