In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: guard timestamp cmsgs to real error queue skbs
skb_is_err_queue() treats PACKET_OUTGOING as the sole marker for an skb
from sk_error_queue. That assumption is not true for AF_PACKET sockets:
outgoing packet taps are also delivered to packet sockets with
skb->pkt_type == PACKET_OUTGOING, but their skb->cb is owned by AF_PACKET
instead of struct sock_exterr_skb.
If such an skb is received with timestamping enabled, the generic
timestamp cmsg path can read AF_PACKET control-buffer state as
sock_exterr_skb::opt_stats. With SO_RXQ_OVFL enabled, the packet drop
counter overlaps opt_stats. An odd drop count makes the path emit
SCM_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_STATS with skb->len and skb->data. For non-linear
skbs this copies past the linear head and can trigger hardened usercopy or
disclose adjacent heap contents.
Keep skb_is_err_queue() local to net/socket.c, but make it verify that
the PACKET_OUTGOING marker is paired with the sock_rmem_free destructor
installed by sock_queue_err_skb(). AF_PACKET receive skbs use normal
receive ownership and no longer pass as error-queue skbs, while legitimate
sk_error_queue entries keep the PACKET_OUTGOING marker and sock_rmem_free
ownership.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 2026-11-09). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 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 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