CVE-2026-43194

HIGHNVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-05-06. NVD baseline CVSS 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-27755 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames

udpgro_frglist.sh and udpgro_bench.sh are the flakiest tests currently in NIPA. They fail in the same exact way, TCP GRO test stalls occasionally and the test gets killed after 10min.

These tests use veth to simulate GRO. They attach a trivial ("return XDP_PASS;") XDP program to the veth to force TSO off and NAPI on.

Digging into the failure mode we can see that the connection is completely stuck after a burst of drops. The sender's snd_nxt is at sequence number N [1], but the receiver claims to have received (rcv_nxt) up to N + 3 * MSS [2]. Last piece of the puzzle is that senders rtx queue is not empty (let's say the block in the rtx queue is at sequence number N - 4 * MSS [3]).

In this state, sender sends a retransmission from the rtx queue with a single segment, and sequence numbers N-4*MSS:N-3*MSS [3]. Receiver sees it and responds with an ACK all the way up to N + 3 * MSS [2]. But sender will reject this ack as TCP_ACK_UNSENT_DATA because it has no recollection of ever sending data that far out [1]. And we are stuck.

The root cause is the mess of the xmit return codes. veth returns an error when it can't xmit a frame. We end up with a loss event like this:

------------------------------------------------- | GSO super frame 1 | GSO super frame 2 | |-----------------------------------------------| | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ------------------------------------------------- x ok ok | ok ok ok \\ snd_nxt

"x" means packet lost by veth, and "ok" means it went thru. Since veth has TSO disabled in this test it sees individual segments. Segment 1 is on the retransmit queue and will be resent.

So why did the sender not advance snd_nxt even tho it clearly did send up to seg 8? tcp_write_xmit() interprets the return code from the core to mean that data has not been sent at all. Since TCP deals with GSO super frames, not individual segment the crux of the problem is that loss of a single segment can be interpreted as loss of all. TCP only sees the last return code for the last segment of the GSO frame (in <> brackets in the diagram above).

Of course for the problem to occur we need a setup or a device without a Qdisc. Otherwise Qdisc layer disconnects the protocol layer from the device errors completely.

We have multiple ways to fix this.

1) make veth not return an error when it lost a packet. While this is what I think we did in the past, the issue keeps reappearing and it's annoying to debug. The game of whack a mole is not great.

2) fix the damn return codes We only talk about NETDEV_TX_OK and NETDEV_TX_BUSY in the documentation, so maybe we should make the return code from ndo_start_xmit() a boolean. I like that the most, but perhaps some ancient, not-really-networking protocol would suffer.

3) make TCP ignore the errors It is not entirely clear to me what benefit TCP gets from interpreting the result of ip_queue_xmit()? Specifically once the connection is established and we're pushing data - packet loss is just packet loss?

4) this fix Ignore the rc in the Qdisc-less+GSO case, since it's unreliable. We already always return OK in the TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS case. In the Qdisc-less case let's be a bit more conservative and only mask the GSO errors. This path is taken by non-IP-"networks" like CAN, MCTP etc, so we could regress some ancient thing. This is the simplest, but also maybe the hackiest fix?

Similar fix has been proposed by Eric in the past but never committed because original reporter was working with an OOT driver and wasn't providing feedback (see Link).

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.5% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
44th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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; 60 days if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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

Published

May 6, 2026

Last Modified

October 19, 2026

Advisory Details (8)

Auto-updated May 11, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ea5d7787635e26ec1194ec7eec0e8e5ae3bd10a5
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c86901d22c89a6bf4e2f013e948aaabc60869893
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ae3f627b45fbc3c776a4e484696f3cad7cbb4eca
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9ac6aebef4b4bfc5ed408b0b65645981574bc780
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7aa767d0d3d04e50ae94e770db7db8197f666970
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56bd32c0edca34041a5c215887fcf562fae2e2db
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4cb163e9efcac4cd35c3043e097f25081a5c015c
Web page

net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0c9de092ef8c50a7ee9612811566f0aa81d8d7b6

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-43194(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(26)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntulinux-tools-raspi-realtime-6.8 (6.8.0-2049.50) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fde-6.8 (6.8.0-1062.69~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fde-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1062.69) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-ibm-edge (5.15.0.1106.110~20.04.1) @ focal2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-lowlatency-5.15 (5.15.0.1107.107) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-tegra-rt-6.8 (6.8.0-1029.30) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-lowlatency-hwe-20.04-edge (6.8.0-134.134.1) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-xilinx-zynqmp-tools-5.15.0-1075 (5.15.0-1075.79) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-134.134+fips1) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-oracle-edge (5.15.0.1109.115~20.04.1) @ focal2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1063.71) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-virtual-hwe-22.04-edge (6.8.0-136.136~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fips-5.15 (5.15.0.1117.102) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-intel-iot-realtime-5.15 (5.15.0.1104.108) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-intel-iotg-5.15 (5.15.0.1107.106) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-gcp-edge (5.15.0.1112.122~20.04.1) @ focal2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-raspi-nolpae (5.15.0.1106.104) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-xilinx-zynqmp (6.8.0.1032.33) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-tegra-rt-5.15 (5.15.0.1064.66~20.04.1) @ focal2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-raspi-6.8 (6.8.0-1060.64) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-oracle-lts-22.04 (5.15.0.1109.105) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-tegra-rt-5.15 (5.15.0.1064.64) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fde-lts-22.04 (5.15.0.1117.126) @ jammy2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-virtual-6.8 (6.8.0-134.134) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-lowlatency-64k-6.8 (6.8.0-1058.61.1) @ noble2026-10-27ubuntu
linuxKernel @ 5.10.252 (fixes >=3.18.0)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 5.10.92-2 (53 versions)
  • every version up to 5.10.257-1: fixed in 5.10.257-1
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 6.1.99-1 (48 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.170-1: fixed in 6.1.170-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.38-1 ... 6.12.85-1~bpo12+1 (17 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.85-1: fixed in 6.12.85-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.19~rc8-1~exp1 (117 versions)
  • every version up to 6.19.6-1: fixed in 6.19.6-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(25)

Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 48× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 267 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 167 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  2. 2026-10-28 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  3. 2026-10-27 17:25 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-27 17:25 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-27 17:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  6. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  7. 2026-10-26 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  8. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  9. 2026-10-25 14:28 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  11. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  12. 2026-10-22 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  13. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  14. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  15. 2026-10-19 20:29 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-19 20:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  17. 2026-10-19 19:24 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-19 19:24 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-19 19:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  20. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 03:40 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  24. 2026-10-16 17:00 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-16 17:00 UTCVendor advisory
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-16 17:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  2. 2026-10-16 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  3. 2026-10-16 15:34 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-16 15:34 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-16 15:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  6. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  7. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  8. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  9. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  10. 2026-10-12 16:06 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 19:48 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 17:02 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-11 14:28 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-11 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  15. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  16. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 54th percentile
  17. 2026-10-08 17:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  18. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  19. 2026-10-06 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  20. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  21. 2026-10-03 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  22. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  23. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  24. 2026-09-30 09:41 UTCOSV refresh
  25. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  26. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 53rd percentile
  27. 2026-09-23 17:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  28. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  29. 2026-09-17 19:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  30. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  31. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  32. 2026-09-13 16:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  33. 2026-09-12 15:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  34. 2026-09-11 16:23 UTCOSV refresh
  35. 2026-09-11 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  36. 2026-09-11 09:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  37. 2026-09-10 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  38. 2026-09-08 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  39. 2026-09-07 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  40. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  41. 2026-09-04 05:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  42. 2026-09-02 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  43. 2026-09-01 13:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  44. 2026-08-30 19:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  45. 2026-08-30 01:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  46. 2026-08-28 21:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  47. 2026-08-27 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  48. 2026-08-26 14:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  49. 2026-08-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  50. 2026-08-23 20:02 UTCEG score recompute
  51. 2026-08-23 20:02 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-08-23 20:02 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  53. 2026-08-23 00:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  54. 2026-08-21 23:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  55. 2026-08-20 22:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  56. 2026-08-19 17:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  57. 2026-08-18 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  58. 2026-08-17 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  59. 2026-08-17 12:56 UTCEG score recompute
  60. 2026-08-17 12:56 UTCVendor advisory
  61. 2026-08-17 12:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  62. 2026-08-16 14:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  63. 2026-08-16 04:53 UTCEG score recompute
  64. 2026-08-16 04:53 UTCVendor advisory
  65. 2026-08-16 04:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  66. 2026-08-16 02:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  67. 2026-08-15 01:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  68. 2026-08-14 16:11 UTCVendor advisory
  69. 2026-08-14 16:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  70. 2026-08-14 03:28 UTCEG score recompute
  71. 2026-08-14 03:28 UTCVendor advisory
  72. 2026-08-14 03:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  73. 2026-08-13 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  74. 2026-08-13 06:07 UTCVendor advisory
  75. 2026-08-13 06:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6g7r-xrvq-rpc8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-43194?
CVE-2026-43194 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on May 6, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames udpgrofrglist.sh and udpgrobench.sh are the flakiest tests currently in NIPA. They fail in the same exact way, TCP GRO test stalls occasionally and the test gets killed after 10min. These…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-43194 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-43194 was published on May 6, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 19, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-43194 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-43194 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (44th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-43194?
CVE-2026-43194 has a CVSS v3 base score of 7.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-43194?
A fix for CVE-2026-43194 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-43194 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-43194

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-43194?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.