In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: nf_conntrack: destroy stale expectfn expectations on unregister
NAT helpers such as nf_nat_h323 store a raw pointer to module text in
exp->expectfn (e.g. ip_nat_q931_expect). nf_ct_helper_expectfn_unregister()
only unlinks the callback descriptor and never walks the expectation table,
so an expectation pending at module removal survives with a dangling
exp->expectfn into freed module text.
When the expected connection arrives, init_conntrack() invokes
exp->expectfn(), now a stale pointer into the unloaded module. Reproduced
on a KASAN build by loading the H.323 helpers, creating a Q.931
expectation, unloading nf_nat_h323, then connecting to the expected port:
Oops: int3: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
RIP: 0010:0xffffffffa06102d1
init_conntrack.isra.0 (net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:1862)
nf_conntrack_in (net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:2049)
ipv4_conntrack_local (net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto.c:223)
nf_hook_slow (net/netfilter/core.c:619)
__ip_local_out (net/ipv4/ip_output.c:120)
__tcp_transmit_skb (net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:1715)
tcp_connect (net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:4374)
tcp_v4_connect (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:345)
__sys_connect (net/socket.c:2167)
Modules linked in: nf_conntrack_h323 [last unloaded: nf_nat_h323]
Reaching the dangling state requires CAP_SYS_MODULE in the initial user
namespace to remove a NAT helper that still has live expectations, so this
is a robustness fix; leaving an expectation pointing at freed text is wrong
regardless.
Add nf_ct_helper_expectfn_destroy(), which walks the expectation table and
drops every expectation whose ->expectfn matches the descriptor being torn
down. Call it from each NAT helper's exit path after the existing RCU grace
period, so no expectation outlives the code it points at and no extra
synchronize_rcu() is introduced. With the fix, the same reproducer runs to
completion without the Oops.
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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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