In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mac80211: fix NULL pointer dereference in mesh_rx_csa_frame()
In mesh_rx_csa_frame(), elems->mesh_chansw_params_ie is dereferenced
at lines 1638 and 1642 without a prior NULL check:
ifmsh->chsw_ttl = elems->mesh_chansw_params_ie->mesh_ttl;
...
pre_value = le16_to_cpu(elems->mesh_chansw_params_ie->mesh_pre_value);
The mesh_matches_local() check above only validates the Mesh ID,
Mesh Configuration, and Supported Rates IEs. It does not verify the
presence of the Mesh Channel Switch Parameters IE (element ID 118).
When a received CSA action frame omits that IE, ieee802_11_parse_elems()
leaves elems->mesh_chansw_params_ie as NULL, and the unconditional
dereference causes a kernel NULL pointer dereference.
A remote mesh peer with an established peer link (PLINK_ESTAB) can
trigger this by sending a crafted SPECTRUM_MGMT/CHL_SWITCH action frame
that includes a matching Mesh ID and Mesh Configuration IE but omits the
Mesh Channel Switch Parameters IE. No authentication beyond the default
open mesh peering is required.
Crash confirmed on kernel 6.17.0-5-generic via mac80211_hwsim:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
RIP: 0010:ieee80211_mesh_rx_queued_mgmt+0x143/0x2a0 [mac80211]
CR2: 0000000000000000
Fix by adding a NULL check for mesh_chansw_params_ie after
mesh_matches_local() returns, consistent with how other optional IEs
are guarded throughout the mesh code.
The bug has been present since v3.13 (released 2014-01-19).
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
- 0.1% 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 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: 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 (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