CVE-2026-64560

HIGHPre-NVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-29. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-50417 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Public exploit or proof-of-concept code is available
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: Public PoCExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

posix-cpu-timers: Prevent UAF caused by non-leader exec() race

Wongi and Jungwoo decoded and reported a non-leader exec() related race which can result in an UAF:

sys_timer_delete() exec() posix_cpu_timer_del() // Observes old leader p = pid_task(pid, pid_type); de_thread() switch_leader(); release_task(old_leader) __exit_signal(old_leader) sighand = lock(old_leader, sighand); posix_cpu_timers*_exit(); sighand = lock_task_sighand(p) unhash_task(old_leader); sh = lock(p, sighand) old_leader->sighand = NULL; unlock(sighand); (p->sighand == NULL) unlock(sh) return NULL;

// Returns without action if(!sighand) return 0; free_posix_timer();

This is "harmless" unless the deleted timer was armed and enqueued in p->signal because on exec() a TGID targeted timer is inherited.

As sys_timer_delete() freed the underlying posix timer object run_posix_cpu_timers() or any timerqueue related add/delete operations on other timers will access the freed object's timerqueue node, which results in an UAF.

There is a similar problem vs. posix_cpu_timer_set(). For regular posix timers it just transiently returns -ESRCH to user space, but for the use case in do_cpu_nanosleep() it's the same UAF just that the k_itimer is allocated on the stack.

Also posix_cpu_timer_rearm() fails to rearm the timer, which means it stops to expire.

While debating solutions Frederic pointed out another problem:

posix_cpu_timer_del(tmr) __exit_signal(p) posix_cpu_timers*_exit(p); unhash_task(p); p->sighand = NULL; sh = lock_task_sighand(p) sighand = p->sighand; if (!sighand) return NULL; lock(sighand);

if (!sh) WARN_ON_ONCE(timer_queued(tmr));

On weakly ordered architectures it is not guaranteed that posix_cpu_timer_del() will observe the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() when p->sighand is observed as NULL, which means the WARN() can be a false positive.

Solve these issues by:

1) Changing the store in __exit_signal() to smp_store_release().

2) Adding a smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() into the !sighand path of lock_task_sighand().

3) Creating a helper function for looking up the task and locking sighand which does not return when sighand == NULL. Instead it retries the task lookup and only if that fails it gives up.

4) Using that helper in the three affected functions.

#1/#2 ensures that the reader side which observes sighand == NULL also observes all preceeding stores, i.e. the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() and the ones in unhash_task().

#3 ensures that the above described non-leader exec() situation is handled gracefully. When the task lookup returns the old leader, but sighand == NULL then it retries. In the non-leader exec() case the subsequent task lookup will observe the new leader due to #1/#2. In normal exit() scenarios the subsequent lookup fails.

When the task lookup fails, the function also checks whether the timer is still enqueued and issues a warning if that's the case. Unfortunately there is nothing which can be done about it, but as the task is already not longer visible the timer should not be accessed anymore. This check also requires memory ordering, which is not provided when the first lookup fails. To achieve that the check is preceeded by a smp_rmb() which pairs with the smp_wmb() in write_seqlock() in __exit_signal(). That ensures that the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() are visible.

The history of the non-leader exec() issue goes back to the early days of posix CPU timers, which stored a pointer to the group leader task in the timer. That obviously fails when a non-leader exec() switches the leader. commit e0a70217107e ("posix-cpu-timers: workaround to suppress the problems with mt exec") added a temporary workaround for that in 2010 which surv ---truncated---

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
51
EG Risk 51/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity78% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
43rd
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 29, 2026

Last Modified

October 19, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Jul 30, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

posix-cpu-timers: Prevent UAF caused by non-leader exec() race - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ad1cafa1bdaa71da85d71cac053838bbe97852b6
Web page

posix-cpu-timers: Prevent UAF caused by non-leader exec() race - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/920f893f735e92ba3a1cd9256899a186b161928d

Patch Availability(18)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(6 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 5.10.92-2 (55 versions)
  • every version up to 5.10.262-1: fixed in 5.10.262-1
—
linux-6.16.1.106-3~deb11u1 ... 6.1.177-1~deb11u1 (22 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.180-1~deb11u1: fixed in 6.1.180-1~deb11u1
—
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 6.1.99-1 (55 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.180-1: fixed in 6.1.180-1
—
linux-6.12—
  • every version up to 6.12.100-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.100-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.38-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (31 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.100-1: fixed in 6.12.100-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.1~rc7-1~exp1 (160 versions)
  • every version up to 7.1.5-1: fixed in 7.1.5-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(15)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 81× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 364 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 264 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  3. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  4. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:25 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-29 16:25 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-29 16:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  8. 2026-10-28 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  12. 2026-10-25 14:12 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  14. 2026-10-24 16:26 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-24 16:26 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-24 16:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  17. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  18. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  19. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  20. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 41st percentile
  21. 2026-10-19 21:43 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-19 21:43 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-10-19 21:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  24. 2026-10-19 20:55 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-19 20:55 UTCVendor advisory
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-19 20:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  2. 2026-10-19 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-19 16:38 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-19 16:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  5. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  6. 2026-10-18 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-18 16:38 UTCVendor advisory
  8. 2026-10-18 16:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  9. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  10. 2026-10-18 03:22 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  12. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  13. 2026-10-16 16:35 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-16 16:35 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-16 16:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  16. 2026-10-16 16:10 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-16 16:10 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-16 16:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  19. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  20. 2026-10-15 02:41 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-15 02:41 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-15 02:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  23. 2026-10-15 01:46 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-15 01:46 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-15 01:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  26. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  27. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  28. 2026-10-13 11:39 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-10-13 11:39 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-10-13 11:39 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  31. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  32. 2026-10-12 15:47 UTCEG score recompute
  33. 2026-10-11 19:32 UTCEG score recompute
  34. 2026-10-11 16:47 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-10-11 14:09 UTCEG score recompute
  36. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  37. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  38. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  39. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  40. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  41. 2026-10-07 00:01 UTCEG score recompute
  42. 2026-10-07 00:01 UTCVendor advisory
  43. 2026-10-07 00:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  44. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  45. 2026-10-05 20:51 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-10-05 20:51 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-10-05 20:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  48. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  49. 2026-10-05 02:36 UTCEG score recompute
  50. 2026-10-05 02:36 UTCVendor advisory
  51. 2026-10-05 02:36 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  52. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  53. 2026-10-04 07:00 UTCEG score recompute
  54. 2026-10-04 07:00 UTCVendor advisory
  55. 2026-10-04 07:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  56. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  57. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEG score recompute
  58. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  60. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  61. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  62. 2026-10-01 03:33 UTCEG score recompute
  63. 2026-10-01 03:33 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-10-01 03:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  65. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  66. 2026-09-29 07:35 UTCEG score recompute
  67. 2026-09-29 07:35 UTCVendor advisory
  68. 2026-09-29 07:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  69. 2026-09-28 13:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  70. 2026-09-28 08:44 UTCVendor advisory
  71. 2026-09-28 08:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  72. 2026-09-27 19:37 UTCEG score recompute
  73. 2026-09-27 19:37 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-09-27 19:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-78ph-mc3q-52vv · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  75. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile

Publicly available exploits

(14 references, 10 shown)

Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (14 GitHub PoCs). Defenders should treat patch urgency accordingly.

  • GitHub PoCNo-World/rootkit
    Published Oct 24, 2026

    越狱助手 · RootKit for Honor Magic9 (CVE-2026-64560 → cred 写 → 自制内核模块 → KernelSU),Flutter + Shizuku 一键 root

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCYunnijian/OnePlus16-Jailbreak
    Published Oct 20, 2026

    OnePlus 16 (PYB110) jailbreak: CVE-2026-64560 + KernelSU / KernelSU Next / BakaSU / SukiSU Ultra LKM

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCFeng1586/CVE-2026-64560-public
    Published Oct 19, 2026

    CVE-2026-64560 staged security research package

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCChaYeWuu/prague-CVE-2026-64560-OS4.0
    Published Oct 17, 2026

    REDMI K90 Max在OS4.0.0.14.XAACNXM利用CVE-2026-64560获取ROOT权限。

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCfeiguang-ai/plz110-6.12.69-cve-2026-64560-ksu
    Published Oct 15, 2026

    一加 15T(PLZ110)临时 root + KernelSU per-boot 接管:CVE-2026-64560 移植,不写分区、重启即失效。内核 6.12.69-android16-6-g242e1a07f878。

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCqingle009/opace6-cve-2026-64560
    Published Sep 26, 2026

    OnePlus Ace 6 temporary root tool (CVE-2026-64560) - device-verified port with corrected bootidParent address

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCBecome-ILLUSORY/cve-2026-64560-a16
    Published Sep 25, 2026

    CVE-2026-64560 toolkit: Go single-binary toolchain + realme RMX5010 (A16, SM8750) target port

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCWangs-official/opace6-cve-2026-64560
    Published Sep 25, 2026

    针对 OnePlus Ace6 设备的 cve-2026-64560 复现

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCa23bc/op13-cve-2026-64560
    Published Sep 24, 2026
    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCquyicheng03-boop/xiaomi15-dada-cve-2026-64560
    Published Sep 5, 2026

    Device-bound CVE-2026-64560 adaptation for Xiaomi 15 dada OS4.0.0.8

    Open source ↗

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-64560?
CVE-2026-64560 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 29, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: Prevent UAF caused by non-leader exec() race Wongi and Jungwoo decoded and reported a non-leader exec() related race which can result in an UAF: sys_timer_delete() exec() posix_cpu_timer_del() // Observes old…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-64560 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-64560 was published on July 29, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 19, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-64560 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-64560 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (43rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-64560?
CVE-2026-64560 has a CVSS base score of 7.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-64560?
A fix for CVE-2026-64560 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-64560 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-64560

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-64560?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.