Skip to main content

CVE-2026-100395lxc link following

Low priorityMedium6.8EPSS not scored yet

CVE-2026-100395 is a link following in lxc, rated medium (6.8 on CVSS 4.0).

Why this priority: Medium severity, with no exploitation signal.

Published · Updated · NVD status: Received

What it is

The software follows a symbolic link an attacker planted, so it reads or writes a file other than the one it checked. The software follows a symbolic link an attacker created and touches a file it never meant to.

How it is reached

An attacker can exploit it by someone who can already run code or sign in on the machine, without an account, but someone has to act first, such as opening a file or following a link.

What an attacker gains

A successful attack can change data or behaviour and take it offline. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker read or write files outside the folders the service meant to expose.

Is it being exploited?

There is no public report of exploitation yet.

What to do

  1. No fixed version is listed yet. Find every place lxc runs, watch the references for a fix, and plan a replacement if it is no longer supported.
  2. Limit who can run code or sign in on the hosts that run it.
  3. Warn the people who use it, and filter files and links on the way in.

Description from NVD

LXC is a userspace interface for the Linux kernel containment features used to create and manage system containers. In LXC 7.0.0 and earlier, lxc-copy and the public liblxc clone() API can follow attacker-controlled symbolic links while updating /etc/hostname in a copied container root filesystem. The affected surfaces are lxc-copy and liblxc's public lxc_container::clone() API. The privileged cloning process must run as root. The source rootfs must be attacker-controlled or less trusted. A symlink can be placed at etc/hostname or in an intermediate component. The clone operation preserves the symlink before updating the hostname. The vulnerable write truncates and overwrites an existing file outside the destination rootfs. When root clones an untrusted container without LXC_CLONE_KEEPNAME, the copied symlink can resolve outside the destination rootfs and cause the privileged process to overwrite an existing host file with the destination container name. Unprivileged use and managers with independent cloning implementations are not affected. LXC_CLONE_KEEPNAME avoids the hostname update and therefore the affected write.

What this means for your architecture.

A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.

Components it touches

  • File storage the service can read or write. The flaw sits between the application and the file system it can reach.

Trust boundaries in play

  • Host boundary. The attacker needs a foothold on the machine first; the flaw turns a small foothold into a bigger one.
  • People who open files and links. Mail, chat and browsers are the delivery path.
  • Between the application and the file system it can reach. An attacker who crosses it can read or write files outside the folders the service meant to expose.

Questions to answer about your own systems

  • Where does lxc run in your systems, and at which version?
  • Which of those hosts also run code or users you do not fully trust?
  • What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?

Sources

  • CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
  • Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
  • Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
  • Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.