In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ovpn: tcp - fix packet extraction from stream
When processing TCP stream data in ovpn_tcp_recv, we receive large
cloned skbs from __strp_rcv that may contain multiple coalesced packets.
The current implementation has two bugs:
- Header offset overflow: Using pskb_pull with large offsets on
coalesced skbs causes skb->data - skb->head to exceed the u16 storage
of skb->network_header. This causes skb_reset_network_header to fail
on the inner decapsulated packet, resulting in packet drops.
- Unaligned protocol headers: Extracting packets from arbitrary
positions within the coalesced TCP stream provides no alignment
guarantees for the packet data causing performance penalties on
architectures without efficient unaligned access. Additionally,
openvpn's 2-byte length prefix on TCP packets causes the subsequent
4-byte opcode and packet ID fields to be inherently misaligned.
Fix both issues by allocating a new skb for each openvpn packet and
using skb_copy_bits to extract only the packet content into the new
buffer, skipping the 2-byte length prefix. Also, check the length before
invoking the function that performs the allocation to avoid creating an
invalid skb.
If the packet has to be forwarded to userspace the 2-byte prefix can be
pushed to the head safely, without misalignment.
As a side effect, this approach also avoids the expensive linearization
that pskb_pull triggers on cloned skbs with page fragments. In testing,
this resulted in TCP throughput improvements of up to 74%.
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. 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