In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv4, ipv6: Fix handling of transhdrlen in __ip{,6}_append_data()
Including the transhdrlen in length is a problem when the packet is
partially filled (e.g. something like send(MSG_MORE) happened previously)
when appending to an IPv4 or IPv6 packet as we don't want to repeat the
transport header or account for it twice. This can happen under some
circumstances, such as splicing into an L2TP socket.
The symptom observed is a warning in __ip6_append_data():
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5042 at net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1800 __ip6_append_data.isra.0+0x1be8/0x47f0 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1800
that occurs when MSG_SPLICE_PAGES is used to append more data to an already
partially occupied skbuff. The warning occurs when 'copy' is larger than
the amount of data in the message iterator. This is because the requested
length includes the transport header length when it shouldn't. This can be
triggered by, for example:
sfd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_L2TP);
bind(sfd, ...); // ::1
connect(sfd, ...); // ::1 port 7
send(sfd, buffer, 4100, MSG_MORE);
sendfile(sfd, dfd, NULL, 1024);
Fix this by only adding transhdrlen into the length if the write queue is
empty in l2tp_ip6_sendmsg(), analogously to how UDP does things.
l2tp_ip_sendmsg() looks like it won't suffer from this problem as it builds
the UDP packet itself.
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
- 0.2% 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