In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vrf: Fix a potential NPD when removing a port from a VRF
RCU readers that identified a net device as a VRF port using
netif_is_l3_slave() assume that a subsequent call to
netdev_master_upper_dev_get_rcu() will return a VRF device. They then
continue to dereference its l3mdev operations.
This assumption is not always correct and can result in a NPD [1]. There
is no RCU synchronization when removing a port from a VRF, so it is
possible for an RCU reader to see a new master device (e.g., a bridge)
that does not have l3mdev operations.
Fix by adding RCU synchronization after clearing the IFF_L3MDEV_SLAVE
flag. Skip this synchronization when a net device is removed from a VRF
as part of its deletion and when the VRF device itself is deleted. In
the latter case an RCU grace period will pass by the time RTNL is
released.
[1]
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
[...]
RIP: 0010:l3mdev_fib_table_rcu (net/l3mdev/l3mdev.c:181)
[...]
Call Trace:
l3mdev_fib_table_by_index (net/l3mdev/l3mdev.c:201 net/l3mdev/l3mdev.c:189)
__inet_bind (net/ipv4/af_inet.c:499 (discriminator 3))
inet_bind_sk (net/ipv4/af_inet.c:469)
__sys_bind (./include/linux/file.h:62 (discriminator 1) ./include/linux/file.h:83 (discriminator 1) net/socket.c:1951 (discriminator 1))
__x64_sys_bind (net/socket.c:1969 (discriminator 1) net/socket.c:1967 (discriminator 1) net/socket.c:1967 (discriminator 1))
do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1) arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130)
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 2026-10-24). 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