In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
udp: do not accept non-tunnel GSO skbs landing in a tunnel
When rx-udp-gro-forwarding is enabled UDP packets might be GROed when
being forwarded. If such packets might land in a tunnel this can cause
various issues and udp_gro_receive makes sure this isn't the case by
looking for a matching socket. This is performed in
udp4/6_gro_lookup_skb but only in the current netns. This is an issue
with tunneled packets when the endpoint is in another netns. In such
cases the packets will be GROed at the UDP level, which leads to various
issues later on. The same thing can happen with rx-gro-list.
We saw this with geneve packets being GROed at the UDP level. In such
case gso_size is set; later the packet goes through the geneve rx path,
the geneve header is pulled, the offset are adjusted and frag_list skbs
are not adjusted with regard to geneve. When those skbs hit
skb_fragment, it will misbehave. Different outcomes are possible
depending on what the GROed skbs look like; from corrupted packets to
kernel crashes.
One example is a BUG_ON[1] triggered in skb_segment while processing the
frag_list. Because gso_size is wrong (geneve header was pulled)
skb_segment thinks there is "geneve header size" of data in frag_list,
although it's in fact the next packet. The BUG_ON itself has nothing to
do with the issue. This is only one of the potential issues.
Looking up for a matching socket in udp_gro_receive is fragile: the
lookup could be extended to all netns (not speaking about performances)
but nothing prevents those packets from being modified in between and we
could still not find a matching socket. It's OK to keep the current
logic there as it should cover most cases but we also need to make sure
we handle tunnel packets being GROed too early.
This is done by extending the checks in udp_unexpected_gso: GSO packets
lacking the SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL/_CSUM bits and landing in a tunnel must
be segmented.
[1] kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4408!
RIP: 0010:skb_segment+0xd2a/0xf70
__udp_gso_segment+0xaa/0x560
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
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-20). 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