In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: fix ip_rt_bug race in icmp_route_lookup reverse path
icmp_route_lookup() performs multiple route lookups to find a suitable
route for sending ICMP error messages, with special handling for XFRM
(IPsec) policies.
The lookup sequence is:
- First, lookup output route for ICMP reply (dst = original src)
- Pass through xfrm_lookup() for policy check
- If blocked (-EPERM) or dst is not local, enter "reverse path"
- In reverse path, call xfrm_decode_session_reverse() to get fl4_dec
which reverses the original packet's flow (saddr<->daddr swapped)
- If fl4_dec.saddr is local (we are the original destination), use
__ip_route_output_key() for output route lookup
- If fl4_dec.saddr is NOT local (we are a forwarding node), use
ip_route_input() to simulate the reverse packet's input path
- Finally, pass rt2 through xfrm_lookup() with XFRM_LOOKUP_ICMP flag
The bug occurs in step 6: ip_route_input() is called with fl4_dec.daddr
(original packet's source) as destination. If this address becomes local
between the initial check and ip_route_input() call (e.g., due to
concurrent "ip addr add"), ip_route_input() returns a LOCAL route with
dst.output set to ip_rt_bug.
This route is then used for ICMP output, causing dst_output() to call
ip_rt_bug(), triggering a WARN_ON:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: net/ipv4/route.c:1275 at ip_rt_bug+0x21/0x30, CPU#1
Call Trace:
ip_push_pending_frames+0x202/0x240
icmp_push_reply+0x30d/0x430
__icmp_send+0x1149/0x24f0
ip_options_compile+0xa2/0xd0
ip_rcv_finish_core+0x829/0x1950
ip_rcv+0x2d7/0x420
__netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x185/0x1f0
netif_receive_skb+0x90/0x450
tun_get_user+0x3413/0x3fb0
tun_chr_write_iter+0xe4/0x220
...
Fix this by checking rt2->rt_type after ip_route_input(). If it's
RTN_LOCAL, the route cannot be used for output, so treat it as an error.
The reproducer requires kernel modification to widen the race window,
making it unsuitable as a selftest. It is available at:
https://gist.github.com/mrpre/eae853b72ac6a750f5d45d64ddac1e81
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 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 2026-10-24). 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