In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
flow_dissector: do not dissect PPPoE PFC frames
RFC 2516 Section 7 states that Protocol Field Compression (PFC) is NOT
RECOMMENDED for PPPoE. In practice, pppd does not support negotiating
PFC for PPPoE sessions, and the flow dissector driver has assumed an
uncompressed frame until the blamed commit.
During the review process of that commit [1], support for PFC is
suggested. However, having a compressed (1-byte) protocol field means
the subsequent PPP payload is shifted by one byte, causing 4-byte
misalignment for the network header and an unaligned access exception
on some architectures.
The exception can be reproduced by sending a PPPoE PFC frame to an
ethernet interface of a MIPS board, with RPS enabled, even if no PPPoE
session is active on that interface:
$ 0 : 00000000 80c40000 00000000 85144817
$ 4 : 00000008 00000100 80a75758 81dc9bb8
$ 8 : 00000010 8087ae2c 0000003d 00000000
$12 : 000000e0 00000039 00000000 00000000
$16 : 85043240 80a75758 81dc9bb8 00006488
$20 : 0000002f 00000007 85144810 80a70000
$24 : 81d1bda0 00000000
$28 : 81dc8000 81dc9aa8 00000000 805ead08
Hi : 00009d51
Lo : 2163358a
epc : 805e91f0 __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50
ra : 805ead08 __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c
Status: 11000403 KERNEL EXL IE
Cause : 40800010 (ExcCode 04)
BadVA : 85144817
PrId : 0001992f (MIPS 1004Kc)
Call Trace:
[<805e91f0>] __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50
[<805ead08>] __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c
[<805ef330>] get_rps_cpu+0x1b8/0x3fc
[<805fca70>] netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x324/0x364
[<805fd120>] napi_complete_done+0x68/0x2a4
[<8058de5c>] mtk_napi_rx+0x228/0xfec
[<805fd398>] __napi_poll+0x3c/0x1c4
[<805fd754>] napi_threaded_poll_loop+0x234/0x29c
[<805fd848>] napi_threaded_poll+0x8c/0xb0
[<80053544>] kthread+0x104/0x12c
[<80002bd8>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c
Code: 02d51821 1060045b 00000000 <8c640000> 3084000f 2c820005 144001a2 00042080 8e220000
To reduce the attack surface and maintain performance, do not process
PPPoE PFC frames.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
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
- 0.4% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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