In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: ipv6: fix panic when IPv4 route references loopback IPv6 nexthop
When a standalone IPv6 nexthop object is created with a loopback device
(e.g., "ip -6 nexthop add id 100 dev lo"), fib6_nh_init() misclassifies
it as a reject route. This is because nexthop objects have no destination
prefix (fc_dst=::), causing fib6_is_reject() to match any loopback
nexthop. The reject path skips fib_nh_common_init(), leaving
nhc_pcpu_rth_output unallocated. If an IPv4 route later references this
nexthop, __mkroute_output() dereferences NULL nhc_pcpu_rth_output and
panics.
Simplify the check in fib6_nh_init() to only match explicit reject
routes (RTF_REJECT) instead of using fib6_is_reject(). The loopback
promotion heuristic in fib6_is_reject() is handled separately by
ip6_route_info_create_nh(). After this change, the three cases behave
as follows:
- Explicit reject route ("ip -6 route add unreachable 2001:db8::/64"):
RTF_REJECT is set, enters reject path, skips fib_nh_common_init().
No behavior change.
- Implicit loopback reject route ("ip -6 route add 2001:db8::/32 dev lo"):
RTF_REJECT is not set, takes normal path, fib_nh_common_init() is
called. ip6_route_info_create_nh() still promotes it to reject
afterward. nhc_pcpu_rth_output is allocated but unused, which is
harmless.
- Standalone nexthop object ("ip -6 nexthop add id 100 dev lo"):
RTF_REJECT is not set, takes normal path, fib_nh_common_init() is
called. nhc_pcpu_rth_output is properly allocated, fixing the crash
when IPv4 routes reference this nexthop.
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