In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
slip: reject VJ receive packets on instances with no rstate array
slhc_init() accepts rslots == 0 as a valid configuration, with the
documented meaning of 'no receive compression'. In that case the
allocation loop in slhc_init() is skipped, so comp->rstate stays
NULL and comp->rslot_limit stays 0 (from the kzalloc of struct
slcompress).
The receive helpers do not defend against that configuration.
slhc_uncompress() dereferences comp->rstate[x] when the VJ header
carries an explicit connection ID, and slhc_remember() later assigns
cs = &comp->rstate[...] after only comparing the packet's slot number
to comp->rslot_limit. Because rslot_limit is 0, slot 0 passes the
range check, and the code dereferences a NULL rstate.
The configuration is reachable in-tree through PPP. PPPIOCSMAXCID
stores its argument in a signed int, and (val >> 16) uses arithmetic
shift. Passing 0xffff0000 therefore sign-extends to -1, so val2 + 1
is 0 and ppp_generic.c ends up calling slhc_init(0, 1). Because
/dev/ppp open is gated by ns_capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN), the whole path
is reachable from an unprivileged user namespace. Once the malformed
VJ state is installed, any inbound VJ-compressed or VJ-uncompressed
frame that selects slot 0 crashes the kernel in softirq context:
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical
address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
RIP: 0010:slhc_uncompress (drivers/net/slip/slhc.c:519)
Call Trace:
ppp_receive_nonmp_frame (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2466)
ppp_input (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2359)
ppp_async_process (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c:492)
tasklet_action_common (kernel/softirq.c:926)
handle_softirqs (kernel/softirq.c:623)
run_ksoftirqd (kernel/softirq.c:1055)
smpboot_thread_fn (kernel/smpboot.c:160)
kthread (kernel/kthread.c:436)
ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:164)
Reject the receive side on such instances instead of touching rstate.
slhc_uncompress() falls through to its existing 'bad' label, which
bumps sls_i_error and enters the toss state. slhc_remember() mirrors
that with an explicit sls_i_error increment followed by slhc_toss();
the sls_i_runt counter is not used here because a missing rstate is
an internal configuration state, not a runt packet.
The transmit path is unaffected: the only in-tree caller that picks
rslots from userspace (ppp_generic.c) still supplies tslots >= 1, and
slip.c always calls slhc_init(16, 16), so comp->tstate remains valid
and slhc_compress() continues to work.
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