In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: nfnetlink_queue: do shared-unconfirmed check before segmentation
Ulrich reports a regression with nfqueue:
If an application did not set the 'F_GSO' capability flag and a gso
packet with an unconfirmed nf_conn entry is received all packets are
now dropped instead of queued, because the check happens after
skb_gso_segment(). In that case, we did have exclusive ownership
of the skb and its associated conntrack entry. The elevated use
count is due to skb_clone happening via skb_gso_segment().
Move the check so that its peformed vs. the aggregated packet.
Then, annotate the individual segments except the first one so we
can do a 2nd check at reinject time.
For the normal case, where userspace does in-order reinjects, this avoids
packet drops: first reinjected segment continues traversal and confirms
entry, remaining segments observe the confirmed entry.
While at it, simplify nf_ct_drop_unconfirmed(): We only care about
unconfirmed entries with a refcnt > 1, there is no need to special-case
dying entries.
This only happens with UDP. With TCP, the only unconfirmed packet will
be the TCP SYN, those aren't aggregated by GRO.
Next patch adds a udpgro test case to cover this scenario.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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