CVE-2016-10142

HIGHNVD 8.68.6
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 8.6 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2022-05-14. NVD baseline CVSS 8.6; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: epss, ghsa, nvd
8.6
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixSerious severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet.
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: 3%CVSS: 8.6Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

A fix is available — apply it.

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.

CVSS v3
8.6
EG Score
8.6(medium)
EG Risk
44(Track)
EG Risk 44/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity86% × 45%
Exploitation3% × 40%
Automatability30% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS
84.7%
KEV
Not listed

Published

January 14, 2017

Last Modified

May 13, 2026

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFixed in / PatchReleasedSource
redhatkernel-0:2.6.32-696.el62017-03-21redhat

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

All Vendor Advisories

(1)

Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 41× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-07-24 14:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-23 14:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-23 01:21 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-07-23 00:22 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-07-22 22:00 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-07-22 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-21 15:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-21 15:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-20 17:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-19 14:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-19 14:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-19 02:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-19 02:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-18 10:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-16 16:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-15 16:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-15 16:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-15 01:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-07-13 22:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-13 22:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-12 05:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-11 08:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-09 19:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-09 19:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-08 15:10 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-07-07 13:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-07 13:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-06 16:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-06 02:20 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-05 02:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-04 06:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-01 15:02 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-06-30 23:19 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-06-30 23:19 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-06-29 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-06-29 14:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-06-28 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-06-28 04:53 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-06-27 03:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-06-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-06-22 14:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-22 14:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-21 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-21 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-21 01:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-21 01:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-19 19:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-19 19:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-18 17:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-06-17 17:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-06-17 17:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-16 17:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-16 17:50 UTCEPSS rescore
  32. 2026-06-15 17:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-14 23:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-13 22:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-12 23:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-06-12 23:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-11 13:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-11 13:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-10 22:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-10 13:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-08 14:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-07 15:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-05 22:44 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-05 06:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  46. 2026-06-05 06:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  47. 2026-06-04 13:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-04 13:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-02 20:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-01 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  51. 2026-06-01 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  52. 2026-05-31 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-05-31 22:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  54. 2026-05-31 00:14 UTCEPSS rescore
  55. 2026-05-29 13:41 UTCEPSS rescore
  56. 2026-05-28 13:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  57. 2026-05-28 13:42 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-05-27 13:38 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-05-27 13:38 UTCEPSS rescore
  60. 2026-05-26 13:41 UTCEPSS rescore
  61. 2026-05-26 07:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-05-26 07:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-05-24 16:43 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-05-22 21:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  65. 2026-05-22 17:08 UTCEG score recompute
  66. 2026-05-22 17:08 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-05-22 17:08 UTCGHSA enrichment
  68. 2026-05-21 22:40 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-05-20 22:37 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-05-20 22:37 UTCEPSS rescore
  71. 2026-05-20 11:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  72. 2026-05-20 11:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  73. 2026-05-20 11:21 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-05-18 21:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  75. 2026-05-18 21:30 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2016-10142?
CVE-2016-10142 is a high vulnerability published on January 14, 2017. An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An…
When was CVE-2016-10142 disclosed?
CVE-2016-10142 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on January 14, 2017, with the most recent update on May 13, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2016-10142 actively exploited?
CVE-2016-10142 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 84.7% percentile likelihood of exploitation in the next 30 days — higher percentiles indicate greater predicted risk.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2016-10142?
CVE-2016-10142 has a CVSS v3 base score of 8.6 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2016-10142?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2016-10142, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2016-10142

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2016-10142?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.