In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/sched: Enforce that teql can only be used as root qdisc
Design intent of teql is that it is only supposed to be used as root qdisc.
We need to check for that constraint.
Although not important, I will describe the scenario that unearthed this
issue for the curious.
GangMin Kim managed to concot a scenario as follows:
ROOT qdisc 1:0 (QFQ)
├── class 1:1 (weight=15, lmax=16384) netem with delay 6.4s
└── class 1:2 (weight=1, lmax=1514) teql
GangMin sends a packet which is enqueued to 1:1 (netem).
Any invocation of dequeue by QFQ from this class will not return a packet
until after 6.4s. In the meantime, a second packet is sent and it lands on
1:2. teql's enqueue will return success and this will activate class 1:2.
Main issue is that teql only updates the parent visible qlen (sch->q.qlen)
at dequeue. Since QFQ will only call dequeue if peek succeeds (and teql's
peek always returns NULL), dequeue will never be called and thus the qlen
will remain as 0. With that in mind, when GangMin updates 1:2's lmax value,
the qfq_change_class calls qfq_deact_rm_from_agg. Since the child qdisc's
qlen was not incremented, qfq fails to deactivate the class, but still
frees its pointers from the aggregate. So when the first packet is
rescheduled after 6.4 seconds (netem's delay), a dangling pointer is
accessed causing GangMin's causing a UAF.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-09). 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