EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 7.1Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
net_route_ipv6_packet() in subsys/net/ip/route_ipv6.c resolved the nexthop's link-layer address with net_nbr_get_lladdr(nbr->idx) without first checking whether the neighbor cache entry actually had a linked link-layer address. An unresolved neighbor carries idx == NET_NBR_LLADDR_UNKNOWN (0xff), and net_nbr_get_lladdr() in subsys/net/ip/nbr.c performs no runtime bounds check beyond a NET_ASSERT, returning &net_neighbor_lladdr[255] — roughly 2.5 KB past the end of an array whose default size is CONFIG_NET_IPV6_MAX_NEIGHBORS (8). Because the returned pointer is never NULL, the following lladdr == NULL guard does not catch it.
The function is reached from ipv6_route_packet() in subsys/net/ip/ipv6.c for every received unicast IPv6 packet whose destination is not a local address on the receiving interface; CONFIG_NET_IPV6_ROUTE is enabled by default whenever the IPv6 neighbor cache is, so no router or forwarding configuration is needed. net_route_ipv6_get_info() returns the packet's destination itself as the nexthop when a neighbor cache entry for it exists, and the cache lookup does not skip INCOMPLETE entries. An unauthenticated attacker on the same link can therefore force the unresolved state — for example by eliciting traffic to a spoofed, non-existent neighbor address so that net_ipv6_send_ns() creates an INCOMPLETE entry, or by sending a Router Advertisement with no source link-layer address option, which creates a persistently unresolved router neighbor — and then send a packet addressed to that neighbor.
The result is an out-of-bounds read at a fixed index past the neighbor link-layer address array. On builds with CONFIG_ASSERT enabled the assertion fires and the device panics, giving a repeatable remote denial of service. With assertions disabled, the stale out-of-bounds struct net_linkaddr drives a memcmp() over an attacker-uninfluenced length and, when its len byte passes the NET_LINK_ADDR_MAX_LENGTH check, up to 8 bytes of unrelated static RAM are copied into the outgoing frame's destination link-layer address and transmitted on the link, disclosing them to any listener. There is no out-of-bounds write and the offset is not attacker-controlled, which bounds the impact.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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