In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: arp_tables: fix IEEE1394 ARP payload parsing
Weiming Shi says:
"arp_packet_match() unconditionally parses the ARP payload assuming two
hardware addresses are present (source and target). However,
IPv4-over-IEEE1394 ARP (RFC 2734) omits the target hardware address
field, and arp_hdr_len() already accounts for this by returning a
shorter length for ARPHRD_IEEE1394 devices.
As a result, on IEEE1394 interfaces arp_packet_match() advances past a
nonexistent target hardware address and reads the wrong bytes for both
the target device address comparison and the target IP address. This
causes arptables rules to match against garbage data, leading to
incorrect filtering decisions: packets that should be accepted may be
dropped and vice versa.
The ARP stack in net/ipv4/arp.c (arp_create and arp_process) already
handles this correctly by skipping the target hardware address for
ARPHRD_IEEE1394. Apply the same pattern to arp_packet_match()."
Mangle the original patch to always return 0 (no match) in case user
matches on the target hardware address which is never present in
IEEE1394.
Note that this returns 0 (no match) for either normal and inverse match
because matching in the target hardware address in ARPHRD_IEEE1394 has
never been supported by arptables. This is intentional, matching on the
target hardware address should never evaluate true for ARPHRD_IEEE1394.
Moreover, adjust arpt_mangle to drop the packet too as AI suggests:
In arpt_mangle, the logic assumes a standard ARP layout. Because
IEEE1394 (FireWire) omits the target hardware address, the linear
pointer arithmetic miscalculates the offset for the target IP address.
This causes mangling operations to write to the wrong location, leading
to packet corruption. To ensure safety, this patch drops packets
(NF_DROP) when mangling is requested for these fields on IEEE1394
devices, as the current implementation cannot correctly map the FireWire
ARP payload.
This omits both mangling target hardware and IP address. Even if IP
address mangling should be possible in IEEE1394, this would require
to adjust arpt_mangle offset calculation, which has never been
supported.
Based on patch from Weiming Shi .
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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (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