It seems there was some kind of confusion during the disclosure process, because the vendors aren't treating this vulnerability as serious and it remains unpatched in many distros.
Seems like distros consider it a medium risk because it doesn't involve remote code execution and requires local access. Though it allows local root privilege escalation which is considered high priority.
> Medium: A significant problem, typically exploitable for many users. Includes network daemon denial of service, cross-site scripting, and gaining user privileges.
Strange that it's not classified as "high", which specifically includes "local root privilege escalations".
> High: A significant problem, typically exploitable for nearly all users in a default installation of Ubuntu. Includes serious remote denial of service, local root privilege escalations, local data theft, and data loss.
If you want to use the suggested mitigation (disabling kernel module `algif_aead` with a modprobe config), and you do not want to run that whole obfuscated shell code to get an actual root shell, but only check if the module can be loaded, here is a readable version of its first few lines:
python3 -c 'import socket; s = socket.socket(socket.AF_ALG, socket.SOCK_SEQPACKET, 0); s.bind(("aead","authencesn(hmac(sha256),cbc(aes))")); print("algif_aead probably successfully loaded, mitigation not effective; remove again with: rmmod algif_aead")'
14.3 seems to come from some Red Hat-specific GCC version, which can be reported as "gcc (GCC) 14.3.1 20250617 (Red Hat 14.3.1-2)". See these random examples I found by googling:
On the same line it says kernel version 6.12.0-124.45.1.el10_1. Which is RHEL 10. This is the kind of typo that humans make -- the hard to type numbers are accurate because they're cut and pasted, but the "easy" numbers have errors because they're not cut and pasted.
ugh sorry should be fixed. There was some scrambling to get more info together to explain the issue (and yes, obviously marketing), so there are some minor mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out!
I don’t know if “cool” is the word I’d use, but there isn’t an established “right” way to disclose a vulnerability that you found outside of a contracted security review or other employment/contracting arrangement.
The fact that they have no idea RHEL 14, probably the most well known enterprise distro, is not a thing, and yet they "directly verified on it" casts some doubt on seriousness.
I don't know what to tell you. I'm sure you have them dead to rights on Linux distro knowledge reliability, but the exploit here is real, and the vulnerability researchers they have on staff are also real. Xint is not generally a slop factory.
It's ironic that the one thing LLMs can't do reliably in this space is "write copy for humans" (I don't trust them for that either).
Honestly I feel like a coding agent review would have caught this issue. I guess if you want to vibe-code your branded CVE web site it's not a bad idea to at least mash /review at the end.
Kind of funny to do something impressive and then ignore the details on the presentation, but perhaps that's not uncommon for security researchers?
I couldn't get the POC to work with my version of Python so I had ChatGPT convert it to C [0] and was able to verify my Slackware system does not appear to be affected, but my NixOS system would be if I had any world-readable suid binaries (which I had to make one to test it).
For mitigation, the page currently basically just says:
> Update your distribution's kernel package to one that includes mainline commit a664bf3d603d
But it isn't very clear to me what Kernel version you can expect that to be in. For Arch/CachyOS, the patch seems to be included in 6.18.22+, 6.19.12+ and 7.0+. If you're on any of the lower versions in the same upstream stable series, you're likely vulnerable right now. Some distro kernels may include the fix in other versions, so check for your distribution.
So this replaces a SUID binary, in order to run as PID 0. The website claims it can escape "Kubernetes / container clusters" and "CI runners & build farms" but I don't see anything supporting the claim it can escape a container (or specifically, a user namespace).
I ran the exploit in rootless Podman, and predictably it doesn't escape the container.
They also claim their script "roots every Linux distribution shipped since 2017.", but only tested four; and it doesn't work on Alpine
>The website claims it can escape "Kubernetes / container clusters" and "CI runners & build farms" but I don't see anything supporting the claim it can escape a container
they state that the write-up is forthcoming. presumably there is some additional steps or modifications that will be detailed in the 'part 2'.
"Next: "From Pod to Host," how Copy Fail escapes every major cloud Kubernetes platform."
> They also claim their script "roots every Linux distribution shipped since 2017.", but only tested four; and it doesn't work on Alpine
They've done themselves no favours at all with their write up.
It does seem legitimate (I was able to use the PoC on a 24.04 instance), and seems like it should be a big deal, but the actual number of affected distributions seems way lower, and not even remotely as per their claim every distribution since 2017.
For example with Ubuntu, if I'm reading it right there's some impact in 16.04 (EOL), but then at least as per their analysis, only the vendor specific 6.17 kernels they ship that have it (e.g. linux-gcp, linux-oracle-6.7 etc.). That's a relatively new kernel version they started shipping recently, after it was released upstream last September.
If you can get to real UID 0 from a rootless container, you can escape it, but you do need to take extra steps. Same with it working on Alpine: the underlying vulnerability probably still exists, but the script might need some adjusting. It's a PoC, not a full exploit for every situation.
It also doesn't work on Raspberry Pi, though presumably it could easily be made to; it does replace the su binary, but the replacement is not executable.
It's patching the binary in memory, so the binary patch would be architecture dependent. The existing one is only x86_64, but with an updated payload, it would work on arm.
Yes. Alpine in rootless Podman doesn't work (after replacing "/usr/bin/su" with "/bin/su" in the .py, running the .py just doesn't do anything) while it does in Debian in rootless Podman on the same host.
The page itself seems vibecoded and a bit of an advertisement, but it does look like the vulnerability is real and high risk. It does explain the big security update I just got, guess I'll prioritize updating today.
Is there a readable version of the exploit readily available by any chance? Gotta admit that I failed binary-zip-interpretation-with-naked-eye class twice
A workaround might be to make all setuid/setgid files non-world-readable because then they cannot be opened at all, and thus there is no setuid file to replace the contents of.
Fair enough -- a simpler change might be to poison /etc/passwd and call `su` to a user that has uid 0, since that requires no shell code nor a readable binary, and this seems to have worked in a slightly modified POC:
It being readable is the default configuration most places, after all the purpose is to call it from a non-privileged user. But I could see it being made non-readable since its use is discouraged nowadays... though then I'd expect sudo to be readable as an alternative.
Looks like a LLM hallucination - there is no thing like "RHEL 14.3", although referenced kernel signature (6.12.0-124.45.1.el10_1) contains reference to real RHEL release, i.e. 10.1.
As of this comment, Debian Stable ("Trixie", though I hate codenames) doesn't have a fix in place and remains vulnerable, or at least their CVE tracker shows it as such:
I choose not to call it Debian 13 because that carries less context than Stable/Testing/sid. I'd rather not require the user to maintain that extra metnal mapping.
Anyone who knows anything about this subject immediately understands what is connoted by "Debian Stable". I run Trixie on most of my personal boxes and I had no idea what version number it is, nor do I particularly care.
I rewrote it quickly to C [1] (and changed the embedded binary to be aarch64).
Unfortunately it fails on calling bind() on my device, so probalby Android doesn't ship with that kenrel module by default :(. So no freedom for my $40 phone.
Putting it out here, maybe somebody else will have better luck.
Update: Checking the kernel config indeed confirms this.
adb shell zcat /proc/config.gz | grep CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API
# CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_HASH is not set
# CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_SKCIPHER is not set
# CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_RNG is not set
# CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_AEAD is not set
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/a.py", line 5, in c
a=s.socket(38,5,0); # ...
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/usr/lib/python3.13/socket.py", line 233, in __init__
_socket.socket.__init__(self, family, type, proto, fileno)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied
I got line 5 to run and failed on line 8 due to lack of su. I'd need to find a user accessible setuid binary for it to work.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 8, in <module>
f=g.open("/usr/bin/su",0);i=0;e=zlib.decompress(d("78daab77f57163626464800126063b0610af82c101cc7760c0040e0c160c301d209a154d16999e07e5c1680601086578c0f0ff864c7e568f5e5b7e10f75b9675c44c7e56c3ff593611fcacfa499979fac5190c0c0c0032c310d3"))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/bin/su'
Now the socket is blocked. Also probably should have realized the socket is defined earlier than its called
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 9, in <module>
while i<len(e):c(f,i,e[i:i+4]);i+=4
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 5, in c
a=s.socket(38,5,0);a.bind(("aead","authencesn(hmac(sha256),cbc(aes))"));h=279;v=a.setsockopt;v(h,1,d('0800010000000010'+'0'64));v(h,5,None,4);u,_=a.accept();o=t+4;i=d('00');u.sendmsg([b"A"4+c],[(h,3,i4),(h,2,b'\x10'+i19),(h,4,b'\x08'+i*3),],32768);r,w=g.pipe();n=g.splice;n(f,w,o,offset_src=0);n(r,u.fileno(),o)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/data/data/com.termux/files/usr/lib/python3.12/socket.py", line 233, in __init__
_socket.socket.__init__(self, family, type, proto, fileno)
PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied
System partitions being non-writable has nothing to do with the vulnerability - it allows modifying the cache of any file that you can open for reading.
Not using setuid anywhere means you'd have to build a slightly more clever exploit, but it's still trivial - just modify some binary you know will run as root "soon".
But... I didn't check, but IIRC the untrusted_app secontext that apps run in is not allowed to open AF_ALG sockets - so you can't directly trigger the vulnerability as a malicious app. Although it might be possible in some roundabout way (requesting some more privileged crypto service to do so).
Its not writing to the partition though is it? It is polluting the cache page via a write with a buffer overrun in the kernel. I don't think buffer overruns follow permissions.
The fetishism of "byte count" (here, as "732 byte python script") needs to stop, especially when in a context like this where they're trying to illustrate a real failure modality.
Looking at their source code [1] it starts with this simple line:
import os as g,zlib,socket as s
And already I'm perplexed. "os as g"? but we're not aliasing "zlib as z"? Clearly this is auto-generated by some kind of minimizer? Likely because zlib is called only once, and os multiple times. As a code author/reviewer, I would never write "os as g" and I would absolutely never approve review of any code that used this.
Anyway, I could go on. :) Let's just stop fetishizing byte count
Hilariously, "os as g" adds one more byte than it saves, since os is only used 4 times but the alias takes 5 extra bytes to save 4. And "socket as s" comes out even.
If you wanted real savings, you'd use "d=bytes.fromhex" instead of defining a function -- 17 bytes!! And d('00') -> b'\0' for -2 bytes.
We could easily get the byte count down further by using base64.b85decode instead of bytes.fromhex (-70 or so), but ultimately we're optimizing a meaningless metric, as you mention.
I don't see it as fetishizing byte count. I think of it as a proxy measure for how complicated or uncomplicated the exploit might be. They could just as well have said "we can do it in 3 lines of python" or "the Shannon entropy of the script implementing the exploit is really small" and I would have interpreted it similarly.
Where do you see this "fetishizing" happening most often? It's a strange thing to counter-fetishize about.
> I think of it as a proxy measure for how complicated or uncomplicated the exploit might be.
From a Busy Beaver, 256-bytes compo, or Dwitter perspective, 732 bytes isn’t really that meaningful.
And the sample exploit is even optimizing the byte size by using zlib compression, which doesn’t make much sense for the purpose. It just emphasizes the byte count fetishization.
I don't get the 732-byte thing either and while I think it's a relatively punchy and unusually informative landing page for named vulnerability there are little snags like this all over it.
But the fact that it's not a kernel-exec LPE and it's reliable across kernels and distributions is important; it's close to the maximum "exploitability" you're going to see with an LPE. Which the page does communicate effectively; it just gilds the lily.
yeah... definitely a bit of a rush to get the landing page out after a long time in the disclosure process. The folks putting this all together have been working like mad (finding the bug, disclosing, working a lot on patching, writing up POCs and verifying exploitability in different scenarios) and stayed up really late to finish up the landing page, which led to a lot of minor issues.
But the bug is real and people should patch :)
For the size: sometimes people will shove in kilobytes of offset tables or something into an exploit, so it'll fingerprint and then look up details to work. This is much smaller because it doesn't need any of that, which is important for severity. (I agree the "golf" nature is a bit of an aside, kind of like pwn2own exploits taking "10 seconds")
While I agree that it doesn't make much sense to use a minimizer on code the reader could understand, the code-golfed byte count of a CVE repro communicates its complexity in a certain visceral way.
I started to take the exploit script apart and reformat it to be something readable. At about 1041 bytes it's actually readable. The heart of it also includes an encoded zlib compressed blob that's 180 bytes long ('78daab77...'). This is decompressed (zlib.decompress(d(BLOB)) to a 160 byte ELF header.
If you have a choice between posting minimized exploit code, and posting regular exploit code, posting minimized code is virtually always the wrong choice.
If you have a choice between pointing out the byte size of the exploit, and not pointing out the byte size of the exploit, pointing it out is virtually always the wrong choice.
In both cases, doing the right thing is less work. So somebody is going the extra way to ensure they are doing it wrong. If they didn't care, they'd end up doing it right by default.
How does "import os as g" communicate the intent? How does hiding the payload behind zlib communicate the intent? This is the opposite: obfuscating the intent, so they can brag about 732 bytes instead of 846 bytes (or whatever it might have been).
It would have been less work for everyone involved to just release the unminified source.
While not formally reviewing code like this, I read a lot of it for fun. When it's clear and understandable, it's more educational and enjoyable. If the PoC code can also serve as a means of communication, that seems like an extra win.
Then go on. zlib is only used once, so "zlib as z" in exchange for using z once doesn't get you anything. Using os directly and not renaming it g saves you 2 bytes though. But in this age where AI outputs reams of code at the drop of a hat, why shouldn't we enjoy how small you can get it to pop a root shell?
>As a code author/reviewer, I would never write "os as g" and I would absolutely never approve review of any code that used this.
lucky for them, its an exploit script, not enterprise code.
all that needs to be "reviewed" is whether or not it exploits the thing its supposed to.
edit: yall really think a 10-line proof of concept script needs to undergo a code review? wild. i shouldnt be surprised that the top comment on a cool LPE exploit is complaining about variable naming
It's just sloppy. Readers are human, and little mistakes like this take away from the article. Then you add a nonexistent RHEL version, and it just isn't a good look. Which is a shame, because it's otherwise a very interesting vuln.
Maybe you didn't care, but the length of this comment chain clearly shows that it matters. Effective communication is just as important as the engineering.
i just dont understand huffing and puffing over "os as g" in a 10-line poc script, and saying "well i would never approve this". its not enterprise code. its not code that will ever be used anywhere else, for anything. its sole purpose is to prove that the exploit is real, which it does!
the rest of the information is in the actual vulnerability report. the poc is a courtesy to the reportee, so that they can confirm that the report itself isnt bullshit.
evidently, given the downvotes i am getting, people think exploit scripts should be enterprise quality code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ half of the reports i see flowing through mailing lists dont even have a poc.
amazingly HN-like to be upset about a variable name
I don't anyone is saying it's not "enterprise" it's just that they clearly went out of their way to make it less readable. By all means advertise the golf'd line count but just have the non minified script.
>Disagree because to run the PoC you really ought to understand what it’s doing.
that is contained in the report, which will look similar to the blog. the maintainers will have an open line of contact with the reporters as well. the poc is a small part of the entire report. its not like the linux maintainers only received this poc and have to work out the vulnerability from it alone.
>It is failing at letting people confirm the exploit easily.
it confirms the exploit incredibly easy. just run it, and you get confirmation.
If this is verified, this is a very big deal. Root access on any shared computer. Additionally do we know what kernel versions and stable versions have the patch?
For agents, if you are concerned about that, block access to "su" as it is interactive anyway. Not loading it into the memory will block the attack. If you are using AgentSH (https://www.agentsh.org) you can add a rule to block "su" and soon be able to block AF_ALG sockets if you want to further protect things.
> CVEs are, for whatever reason, like the only thing on the planet that people seem to have a problem with when they receive a name. i am not sure why.
What, you guys talk about books based on their “title” instead of just memorising the ISBN of each book? Pssh, count me disappointed!
Probably to some extent it is marketing, but generally it has to do with significant bug finds to get the message out to the people who need to apply patches and/or be informed. Heartbleed, Log4Shell, etc.
Very few CVE’s get names dedicated to them like this, because usually when they do - it is very serious, as in this case.
It's certainly marketing, but it's prosocial: there's no scarcity of names, and "copy.fail" is much easier to remember and talk about than "CVE-2026-31431".
Giving catchy names for bad exploits has been a thing for a while. Probably to make sure it's easy to reference and make sure you're patches as opposed to passing numbers around. Heartbleed, Shellshock, BEAST, Goto Fail, etc
2026-03-23Reported to Linux kernel security team
2026-03-24Initial acknowledgment
2026-03-25Patches proposed and reviewed
2026-04-01Patch committed to mainline
2026-04-22CVE-2026-31431 assigned
2026-04-29Public disclosure (https://copy.fail/)
kernel 6.19.14-arch1-1, the kernel in question from the parent comment, has been patched.
the asterisk is my oops, trying to format the comment in italics to differentiate my comment from the text provided by the author. sorry for the confusion
So this could be usable in lot of places with Python and Linux running? Not that I have too many Linux devices around. Still, might be handy sometimes on personal devices.
> If your kernel was built between 2017 and the patch
This is why I compile my own kernel. I disable things I don't use. If it's not present it can't hurt you.
> block AF_ALG socket creation via seccomp regardless of patch state.
Likewise I use seccomp to only allow syscalls that are necessary. Everything else is disabled. In the programs I have that need to connect to a backend socket, that is done, and then socket creation is disabled.
Any pointers on how to set that up? Like, run all the things through strace, cut the first field, sort, uniq, run through some template and something somesuch what how?
Wow. I tried it on an old testing VM of Ubuntu 24.04 that had not been touched for a few months. Instant root with the bonus that any user that runs "su" gets root too.
I updated the VM thinking it would be fixed afterward. Nope.
unfortunately the page can also lie to you haha. it seems people have reviewed the code by now, but running suspicious shellcode you don't fully understand is never a great idea.
Yet, some people will still continue to say that "AI" isn't ready to replace (or strongly assist) our workflows, sure, some of the best humans devs left a vulnerability that serious (It's extremely serious, so many container as a service are vulnerable) for 9 years and an agent found it in 1 hour, maybe it's time to wake up and accept that it's UNSAFE to not use AI for security review as well?
A human security researcher found the core issue and an agent searched for where to apply it. I don’t think “an agent found it in one hour” is a fair summary of what happened.
I was a bit rough, agreed, but the overall point is still correct, I kinda want to emphasize that I've also ran hundred of loops recently (combination of opus-4.6/gpt-5.4/gemini-3.1-pro-preview) toward a Rust codebase that we manage and that we deemed secure after many audits and found 2 serious issues as well in it, this was also audited externally by a third party that we've paid, which makes me genuinely scared of releasing anything without deep AI verification nowadays.
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2026-31431 "Moderate severity", "Fix deferred"
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-31431
https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-31431
https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-31431.html
https://ubuntu.com/security/cves/about#priority
> Medium: A significant problem, typically exploitable for many users. Includes network daemon denial of service, cross-site scripting, and gaining user privileges.
> High: A significant problem, typically exploitable for nearly all users in a default installation of Ubuntu. Includes serious remote denial of service, local root privilege escalations, local data theft, and data loss.
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/40741 (gcc version "Red Hat 14.3" included in system version at the bottom)
https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/tuxedo/22/otxig/s...
Why marketing though?
Indeed. "Distributions we directly verified: RHEL 14.3". Directly verified by me to be AI slop (the release page at least).
https://access.redhat.com/articles/red-hat-enterprise-linux-...
> Talk to our security experts
(at the bottom of the page)
I have a sneaking suspicion his first name is Claude. Don't get me wrong though, he is pretty good I hear.
It's ironic that the one thing LLMs can't do reliably in this space is "write copy for humans" (I don't trust them for that either).
Kind of funny to do something impressive and then ignore the details on the presentation, but perhaps that's not uncommon for security researchers?
Too many darn acronyms. This one wasn't too hard to figure out from context but I wish people would define acronyms before using them!
[0] https://rkeene.org/viewer/tmp/copy_fail_exp.c.htm
> Update your distribution's kernel package to one that includes mainline commit a664bf3d603d
But it isn't very clear to me what Kernel version you can expect that to be in. For Arch/CachyOS, the patch seems to be included in 6.18.22+, 6.19.12+ and 7.0+. If you're on any of the lower versions in the same upstream stable series, you're likely vulnerable right now. Some distro kernels may include the fix in other versions, so check for your distribution.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-31431
https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-31431
Also, disabling algif_aead is suggested as mitigation
> Before you can patch: disable the algif_aead module.
> echo "install algif_aead /bin/false" > /etc/modprobe.d/disable-algif.conf
> rmmod algif_aead 2>/dev/null || true
Edit: and I can confirm that on my system with kernel 6.19.8 the above fixes the exploit.
Outside of WSL2, the mitigation does appear to work though.
I ran the exploit in rootless Podman, and predictably it doesn't escape the container.
They also claim their script "roots every Linux distribution shipped since 2017.", but only tested four; and it doesn't work on Alpine
they state that the write-up is forthcoming. presumably there is some additional steps or modifications that will be detailed in the 'part 2'.
"Next: "From Pod to Host," how Copy Fail escapes every major cloud Kubernetes platform."
The details will depend on whether the kernel is a newer release or a maintenance version of an older release.
They've done themselves no favours at all with their write up.
It does seem legitimate (I was able to use the PoC on a 24.04 instance), and seems like it should be a big deal, but the actual number of affected distributions seems way lower, and not even remotely as per their claim every distribution since 2017.
For example with Ubuntu, if I'm reading it right there's some impact in 16.04 (EOL), but then at least as per their analysis, only the vendor specific 6.17 kernels they ship that have it (e.g. linux-gcp, linux-oracle-6.7 etc.). That's a relatively new kernel version they started shipping recently, after it was released upstream last September.
In my opinion, this mostly affects countries that are still using outdated systems, especially critical systems.
This gives bad actors a direct route to the root. Having an easily accessible root is not funny.
Think modifying shared libraries, ld preload, cron, I guess on some systems /etc/passwd even.
There are a lot of files readable that should definitely not be writable.
https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions
Does this mean you can go from a basic web shell from a shared hosting account to root? I can see how that could wreak havoc really quickly.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-31431
You can also call it Debian 13.
Anyone who knows anything about this subject immediately understands what is connoted by "Debian Stable". I run Trixie on most of my personal boxes and I had no idea what version number it is, nor do I particularly care.
Unfortunately it fails on calling bind() on my device, so probalby Android doesn't ship with that kenrel module by default :(. So no freedom for my $40 phone.
Putting it out here, maybe somebody else will have better luck.
[1] https://gist.github.com/alufers/921cd6c4b606c5014d6cc61eefb0...
Traceback (most recent call last): File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 8, in <module> f=g.open("/usr/bin/su",0);i=0;e=zlib.decompress(d("78daab77f57163626464800126063b0610af82c101cc7760c0040e0c160c301d209a154d16999e07e5c1680601086578c0f0ff864c7e568f5e5b7e10f75b9675c44c7e56c3ff593611fcacfa499979fac5190c0c0c0032c310d3")) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/bin/su'
Traceback (most recent call last): File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 9, in <module> while i<len(e):c(f,i,e[i:i+4]);i+=4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/data/data/com.termux/files/home/exploit.py", line 5, in c a=s.socket(38,5,0);a.bind(("aead","authencesn(hmac(sha256),cbc(aes))"));h=279;v=a.setsockopt;v(h,1,d('0800010000000010'+'0'64));v(h,5,None,4);u,_=a.accept();o=t+4;i=d('00');u.sendmsg([b"A"4+c],[(h,3,i4),(h,2,b'\x10'+i19),(h,4,b'\x08'+i*3),],32768);r,w=g.pipe();n=g.splice;n(f,w,o,offset_src=0);n(r,u.fileno(),o) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/data/data/com.termux/files/usr/lib/python3.12/socket.py", line 233, in __init__ _socket.socket.__init__(self, family, type, proto, fileno) PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied
Not using setuid anywhere means you'd have to build a slightly more clever exploit, but it's still trivial - just modify some binary you know will run as root "soon".
But... I didn't check, but IIRC the untrusted_app secontext that apps run in is not allowed to open AF_ALG sockets - so you can't directly trigger the vulnerability as a malicious app. Although it might be possible in some roundabout way (requesting some more privileged crypto service to do so).
~~My allegedly fully patched pixel 8 pro allowed an AF_ALG socket to open under termux without virtualization so I'm not sure the last but is true~~
Looking at their source code [1] it starts with this simple line:
import os as g,zlib,socket as s
And already I'm perplexed. "os as g"? but we're not aliasing "zlib as z"? Clearly this is auto-generated by some kind of minimizer? Likely because zlib is called only once, and os multiple times. As a code author/reviewer, I would never write "os as g" and I would absolutely never approve review of any code that used this.
Anyway, I could go on. :) Let's just stop fetishizing byte count
[1] https://github.com/theori-io/copy-fail-CVE-2026-31431/blob/m...
If you wanted real savings, you'd use "d=bytes.fromhex" instead of defining a function -- 17 bytes!! And d('00') -> b'\0' for -2 bytes.
We could easily get the byte count down further by using base64.b85decode instead of bytes.fromhex (-70 or so), but ultimately we're optimizing a meaningless metric, as you mention.
Where do you see this "fetishizing" happening most often? It's a strange thing to counter-fetishize about.
From a Busy Beaver, 256-bytes compo, or Dwitter perspective, 732 bytes isn’t really that meaningful.
And the sample exploit is even optimizing the byte size by using zlib compression, which doesn’t make much sense for the purpose. It just emphasizes the byte count fetishization.
But the fact that it's not a kernel-exec LPE and it's reliable across kernels and distributions is important; it's close to the maximum "exploitability" you're going to see with an LPE. Which the page does communicate effectively; it just gilds the lily.
But the bug is real and people should patch :)
For the size: sometimes people will shove in kilobytes of offset tables or something into an exploit, so it'll fingerprint and then look up details to work. This is much smaller because it doesn't need any of that, which is important for severity. (I agree the "golf" nature is a bit of an aside, kind of like pwn2own exploits taking "10 seconds")
"The honest solution: a clean 50-line cut" and so on, ad nauseam
How often do you review, and subsequently block the release, of PoCs in this sort of context? Sounds like you've faced this a lot.
I always thought code quality mattered less in those, as long as you communicate the intent.
If you have a choice between pointing out the byte size of the exploit, and not pointing out the byte size of the exploit, pointing it out is virtually always the wrong choice.
In both cases, doing the right thing is less work. So somebody is going the extra way to ensure they are doing it wrong. If they didn't care, they'd end up doing it right by default.
How does "import os as g" communicate the intent? How does hiding the payload behind zlib communicate the intent? This is the opposite: obfuscating the intent, so they can brag about 732 bytes instead of 846 bytes (or whatever it might have been).
It would have been less work for everyone involved to just release the unminified source.
"Just" is doing a lot of work there, I'm so annoyed reading it.
It's like an anti-ad and they had pretty cool material to work with.
* Claude loves stacatto "Some numeric figure. Something else. Intensifier" (ex. the "exploitable for a decade." or whatever sentences)
Then go on. zlib is only used once, so "zlib as z" in exchange for using z once doesn't get you anything. Using os directly and not renaming it g saves you 2 bytes though. But in this age where AI outputs reams of code at the drop of a hat, why shouldn't we enjoy how small you can get it to pop a root shell?
https://gist.github.com/fragmede/4fb38fb822359b8f5914127c2fe...
edit: If we drop offset_src=0 and just pass in 0 positionally, it comes down to 720.
Because I want to know what the exploit is doing and how it works, and if it's even safe to run.
A privesc PoC is NOT the place for this kind of fun.
Which I guess is true but I would like to verify the attack is the intended one
lucky for them, its an exploit script, not enterprise code.
all that needs to be "reviewed" is whether or not it exploits the thing its supposed to.
edit: yall really think a 10-line proof of concept script needs to undergo a code review? wild. i shouldnt be surprised that the top comment on a cool LPE exploit is complaining about variable naming
Maybe you didn't care, but the length of this comment chain clearly shows that it matters. Effective communication is just as important as the engineering.
i just dont understand huffing and puffing over "os as g" in a 10-line poc script, and saying "well i would never approve this". its not enterprise code. its not code that will ever be used anywhere else, for anything. its sole purpose is to prove that the exploit is real, which it does!
the rest of the information is in the actual vulnerability report. the poc is a courtesy to the reportee, so that they can confirm that the report itself isnt bullshit.
evidently, given the downvotes i am getting, people think exploit scripts should be enterprise quality code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ half of the reports i see flowing through mailing lists dont even have a poc.
amazingly HN-like to be upset about a variable name
And this code is not readable at all. It is failing at letting people confirm the exploit easily.
that is contained in the report, which will look similar to the blog. the maintainers will have an open line of contact with the reporters as well. the poc is a small part of the entire report. its not like the linux maintainers only received this poc and have to work out the vulnerability from it alone.
>It is failing at letting people confirm the exploit easily.
it confirms the exploit incredibly easy. just run it, and you get confirmation.
i bet if i told you their names, you would instantly know what vulns those are.
its easier to talk about things with names. it hurts no one. it takes approximately no effort or time.
CVEs are, for whatever reason, like the only thing on the planet that people seem to have a problem with when they receive a name. i am not sure why.
What, you guys talk about books based on their “title” instead of just memorising the ISBN of each book? Pssh, count me disappointed!
I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a SovCit or I’d just have to call them Traveller Three and Traveller Four
Very few CVE’s get names dedicated to them like this, because usually when they do - it is very serious, as in this case.
On this bright side, does this mean Magisk is coming to all unpatched Android phones?
Password: su: Authentication token manipulation error
I'm guessing this means it's already patched?
you are reading about it now because it has been patched.
Ubuntu before 26.04 LTS (released a week ago) are currently listed as vulnerable.
Debian other than forky and sid are currently listed as vulnerable.
This is a disgrace.
Give up entirely on non-virtualized container security?
This is not sarcasm. I'd finally given in and started learning about docker/podman-style OCI containerization last week.
For immediate mitigation, block AF_ALG socket creation via seccomp or blacklist the algif_aead module:
I'd do 'umask 133' in front of the echo out of paranoia.
Out of curiosity, was the asterisk after '2>/dev/null' intentional? I had not seen that idiom before.
This is usable anywhere on an affected Kernel version
This is why I compile my own kernel. I disable things I don't use. If it's not present it can't hurt you.
> block AF_ALG socket creation via seccomp regardless of patch state.
Likewise I use seccomp to only allow syscalls that are necessary. Everything else is disabled. In the programs I have that need to connect to a backend socket, that is done, and then socket creation is disabled.
> Yes — it's on this page. We held it for a month while distros prepared patches; the major builds are out as of this writing.
There is no update available for Ubuntu 24, PoC works and just tried updating.
sync && echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
Anybody has the same feeling?