In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tcp: prevent collapsing skbs across boundary in rtx queue
tcp_write_collapse_fence() sets TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->eor = 1 on
tcp_write_queue_tail(sk) to prevent skbs queued after a switch to
device encryption from being collapsed into earlier skbs.
The fence is a no-op if all earlier data has already been transmitted
when the switch happens: sk->sk_write_queue is empty. The not yet
acknowledged earlier skbs wait in sk->tcp_rtx_queue with eor 0.
On a subsequent retransmit or SACK shift, tcp_retrans_try_collapse() or
tcp_shift_skb_data() can then merge an skb queued after the switch into
one queued before it.
Both users of the fence are affected:
- psp: devices only encrypt skbs with skb->decrypted set. The merged skb
keeps decrypted = 0 from the earlier skb, so merged data sent after
psp_sock_assoc_set_tx() is retransmitted in cleartext.
- tls device offload: the merged skb straddles the start marker set in
tls_set_device_offload(). The software fallback (fill_sg_in() returns
-EINVAL) and the mlx5, nfp and funeth drivers cannot handle such an
skb and drop it. Every retransmit rebuilds the same skb, so the
connection stalls.
Fix this in two places, for defense in depth:
- Fall back to tcp_rtx_queue_tail(sk) in tcp_write_collapse_fence()
when tcp_write_queue_tail(sk) is NULL.
- Check !skb_cmp_decrypted(to, from) in tcp_skb_can_collapse(), as
tcp_skb_can_collapse_rx() does on receive. skb_shift(), which both
collapse paths call, already has a DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE() for this
condition.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-13). 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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