In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf, skmsg: fix verdict sk_data_ready racing with ktls rx
sk_psock_strp_data_ready() already checks tls_sw_has_ctx_rx() and
defers to psock->saved_data_ready when a TLS RX context is present,
avoiding a conflict with the TLS strparser's ownership of the receive
queue (commit e91de6afa81c, "bpf: Fix running sk_skb program types
with ktls").
sk_psock_verdict_data_ready() has no equivalent guard. When a socket
is inserted into a sockmap (BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT) before TLS RX is
configured, tls_sw_strparser_arm() saves sk_psock_verdict_data_ready
as rx_ctx->saved_data_ready. On data arrival:
tls_data_ready -> tls_strp_data_ready -> tls_rx_msg_ready
-> saved_data_ready() = sk_psock_verdict_data_ready()
-> tcp_read_skb() drains sk_receive_queue via __skb_unlink()
without calling tcp_eat_skb(), so copied_seq is not advanced.
tls_strp_msg_load() then finds tcp_inq() >= full_len (stale), calls
tcp_recv_skb() on the now-empty queue, hits WARN_ON_ONCE(!first), and
returns with rx_ctx->strp.anchor.frag_list pointing at a psock-owned
(potentially freed) skb. tls_decrypt_sg() subsequently walks that
frag_list: use-after-free.
Apply the same fix as sk_psock_strp_data_ready(): if a TLS RX context
is present, call psock->saved_data_ready (sock_def_readable) to wake
recv() waiters and return immediately, leaving the receive queue
untouched. TLS retains sole ownership of the queue and decrypts the
record normally through tls_sw_recvmsg().
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