In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: ath11k: Ignore frags from uninitialized peer in dp.
When max virtual ap interfaces are configured in all the bands with
ACS and hostapd restart is done every 60s, a crash is observed at
random times.
In this certain scenario, a fragmented packet is received for
self peer, for which rx_tid and rx_frags are not initialized in
datapath. While handling this fragment, crash is observed as the
rx_frag list is uninitialised and when we walk in
ath11k_dp_rx_h_sort_frags, skb null leads to exception.
To address this, before processing received fragments we check
dp_setup_done flag is set to ensure that peer has completed its
dp peer setup for fragment queue, else ignore processing the
fragments.
Call trace:
ath11k_dp_process_rx_err+0x550/0x1084 [ath11k]
ath11k_dp_service_srng+0x70/0x370 [ath11k]
0xffffffc009693a04
__napi_poll+0x30/0xa4
net_rx_action+0x118/0x270
__do_softirq+0x10c/0x244
irq_exit+0x64/0xb4
__handle_domain_irq+0x88/0xac
gic_handle_irq+0x74/0xbc
el1_irq+0xf0/0x1c0
arch_cpu_idle+0x10/0x18
do_idle+0x104/0x248
cpu_startup_entry+0x20/0x64
rest_init+0xd0/0xdc
arch_call_rest_init+0xc/0x14
start_kernel+0x480/0x4b8
Code: f9400281 f94066a2 91405021 b94a0023 (f9406401)
Tested-on: IPQ8074 hw2.0 AHB WLAN.HK.2.7.0.1-01744-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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