In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: x_tables: restrict xt_check_match/xt_check_target extensions for NFPROTO_ARP
Weiming Shi says:
xt_match and xt_target structs registered with NFPROTO_UNSPEC can be
loaded by any protocol family through nft_compat. When such a
match/target sets .hooks to restrict which hooks it may run on, the
bitmask uses NF_INET_* constants. This is only correct for families
whose hook layout matches NF_INET_*: IPv4, IPv6, INET, and bridge
all share the same five hooks (PRE_ROUTING ... POST_ROUTING).
ARP only has three hooks (IN=0, OUT=1, FORWARD=2) with different
semantics. Because NF_ARP_OUT == 1 == NF_INET_LOCAL_IN, the .hooks
validation silently passes for the wrong reasons, allowing matches to
run on ARP chains where the hook assumptions (e.g. state->in being
set on input hooks) do not hold. This leads to NULL pointer
dereferences; xt_devgroup is one concrete example:
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000044: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000220-0x0000000000000227]
RIP: 0010:devgroup_mt+0xff/0x350
Call Trace:
nft_match_eval (net/netfilter/nft_compat.c:407)
nft_do_chain (net/netfilter/nf_tables_core.c:285)
nft_do_chain_arp (net/netfilter/nft_chain_filter.c:61)
nf_hook_slow (net/netfilter/core.c:623)
arp_xmit (net/ipv4/arp.c:666)
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
Fix it by restricting arptables to NFPROTO_ARP extensions only.
Note that arptables-legacy only supports:
- arpt_CLASSIFY
- arpt_mangle
- arpt_MARK
that provide explicit NFPROTO_ARP match/target declarations.
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
- 0.2% 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