In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: iptfs: fix skb_put() panic on non-linear skb during reassembly
In iptfs_reassem_cont(), IP-TFS attempts to append data to the new inner
packet 'newskb' that is being reassembled. First a zero-copy approach is
tried if it succeeds then newskb becomes non-linear.
When a subsequent fragment in the same datagram does not meet the
fast-path conditions, a memory copy is performed. It calls skb_put() to
append the data and as newskb is non-linear it triggers
SKB_LINEAR_ASSERT check.
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
[...]
RIP: 0010:skb_put+0x3c/0x40
[...]
Call Trace:
iptfs_reassem_cont+0x1ab/0x5e0 [xfrm_iptfs]
iptfs_input_ordered+0x2af/0x380 [xfrm_iptfs]
iptfs_input+0x122/0x3e0 [xfrm_iptfs]
xfrm_input+0x91e/0x1a50
xfrm4_esp_rcv+0x3a/0x110
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x1d7/0x1f0
ip_local_deliver_finish+0xbe/0x1e0
__netif_receive_skb_core.constprop.0+0xb56/0x1120
__netif_receive_skb_list_core+0x133/0x2b0
netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x1ff/0x3f0
napi_complete_done+0x81/0x220
virtnet_poll+0x9d6/0x116e [virtio_net]
__napi_poll.constprop.0+0x2b/0x270
net_rx_action+0x162/0x360
handle_softirqs+0xdc/0x510
__irq_exit_rcu+0xe7/0x110
irq_exit_rcu+0xe/0x20
common_interrupt+0x85/0xa0
Fix this by checking if the skb is non-linear. If it is, linearize it by
calling skb_linearize(). As the initial allocation of newskb originally
reserved enough tailroom for the entire reassembled packet we do not
need to check if we have enough tailroom or extend it.
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. 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