In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
team: fix header_ops type confusion with non-Ethernet ports
Similar to commit 950803f72547 ("bonding: fix type confusion in
bond_setup_by_slave()") team has the same class of header_ops type
confusion.
For non-Ethernet ports, team_setup_by_port() copies port_dev->header_ops
directly. When the team device later calls dev_hard_header() or
dev_parse_header(), these callbacks can run with the team net_device
instead of the real lower device, so netdev_priv(dev) is interpreted as
the wrong private type and can crash.
The syzbot report shows a crash in bond_header_create(), but the root
cause is in team: the topology is gre -> bond -> team, and team calls
the inherited header_ops with its own net_device instead of the lower
device, so bond_header_create() receives a team device and interprets
netdev_priv() as bonding private data, causing a type confusion crash.
Fix this by introducing team header_ops wrappers for create/parse,
selecting a team port under RCU, and calling the lower device callbacks
with port->dev, so each callback always sees the correct net_device
context.
Also pass the selected lower device to the lower parse callback, so
recursion is bounded in stacked non-Ethernet topologies and parse
callbacks always run with the correct device context.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-11). 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