In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
openvswitch: Fix CT limit teardown use-after-free
Packet processing uses CT limit state under RCU, while netns teardown
frees that state under ovs_mutex. The CT limit pointer was neither removed
from readers nor protected by a grace period, allowing packet processing to
dereference the freed state.
An unprivileged user can trigger this bug from a user and network
namespace, causing a slab-use-after-free in ovs_ct_execute() when the
netns is torn down.
Publish the CT limit pointer through RCU, remove it before teardown, and
wait for readers before freeing its contents. Keep ovs_mutex around
individual CT limit updates, and use the RCU read-side lock while GET
traverses the RCU-protected limit lists.
Netns teardown detaches the RCU-protected CT limit state in the pernet
.pre_exit callback while holding ovs_mutex. The pernet core guarantees an
RCU grace period between the .pre_exit and .exit callbacks, so the .exit
callback completes the teardown without adding any extra synchronization.
The netlink command handlers do not need NULL checks because the userspace
netlink socket holds an active reference to its network namespace while a
request is processed. The per-netns exit path therefore cannot run
concurrently with SET, DEL, or GET for that socket's namespace.
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 2026-11-09). 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