In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
udp: skip L4 aggregation for UDP tunnel packets
If NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST or NETIF_F_GRO_UDP_FWD are enabled, and there
are UDP tunnels available in the system, udp_gro_receive() could end-up
doing L4 aggregation (either SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 or SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST) at
the outer UDP tunnel level for packets effectively carrying and UDP
tunnel header.
That could cause inner protocol corruption. If e.g. the relevant
packets carry a vxlan header, different vxlan ids will be ignored/
aggregated to the same GSO packet. Inner headers will be ignored, too,
so that e.g. TCP over vxlan push packets will be held in the GRO
engine till the next flush, etc.
Just skip the SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 and SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST code path if the
current packet could land in a UDP tunnel, and let udp_gro_receive()
do GRO via udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive.
The check implemented in this patch is broader than what is strictly
needed, as the existing UDP tunnel could be e.g. configured on top of
a different device: we could end-up skipping GRO at-all for some packets.
Anyhow, that is a very thin corner case and covering it will add quite
a bit of complexity.
v1 -> v2:
- hopefully clarify the commit message
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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