In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: ah: account for ESN high bits in async callbacks
AH allocates its temporary auth/ICV layout differently when ESN is enabled:
the async ahash setup appends a 4-byte seqhi slot before the ICV or
auth_data area, but the async completion callbacks still reconstruct the
temporary layout as if seqhi were absent.
With an async AH implementation selected, that makes AH copy or compare
the wrong bytes on both the IPv4 and IPv6 paths. In UML repro on IPv4 AH
with ESN and forced async hmac(sha1), ping fails with 100% packet loss,
and the callback logs show the pre-fix drift:
ah4 output_done: esn=1 err=0 icv_off=20 expected_off=24
ah4 input_done: esn=1 auth_off=20 expected_auth_off=24 icv_off=32 expected_icv_off=36
Reconstruct the callback-side layout the same way the setup path built it
by skipping the ESN seqhi slot before locating the saved auth_data or ICV.
Per RFC 4302, the ESN high-order 32 bits participate in the AH ICV
computation, so the async callbacks must account for the seqhi slot.
Post-fix, the same IPv4 AH+ESN+forced-async-hmac(sha1) UML repro shows
the corrected offset (ah4 output_done: esn=1 err=0 icv_off=24
expected_off=24) and ping succeeds; net/ipv4/ah4.o and net/ipv6/ah6.o
build clean at W=1. IPv6 AH+ESN was not exercised at runtime, and the
change has not been tested against a real async hardware AH engine.
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 2026-11-06). 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