In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ovpn: respect peer refcount in CMD_NEW_PEER error path
ovpn_nl_peer_new_doit()'s error path calls ovpn_peer_release() directly
rather than ovpn_peer_put(), bypassing the kref. The accompanying
comment ("peer was not yet hashed, thus it is not used in any context")
holds for UDP but not for TCP.
For UDP, the ovpn_socket union uses the .ovpn arm and never points back
at a peer; UDP encap_recv looks up peers via the not-yet-populated
hashtables, so the new peer is unreachable until ovpn_peer_add()
publishes it.
For TCP, ovpn_socket_new() sets ovpn_sock->peer and
ovpn_tcp_socket_attach() publishes ovpn_sock via rcu_assign_sk_user_data().
From that moment until ovpn_socket_release() detaches in the error path,
the TCP fd is fully wired: userspace recvmsg / sendmsg / close / poll
on the fd, as well as the strparser-driven ovpn_tcp_rcv() path, can
reach the peer through sk_user_data -> ovpn_sock->peer and bump its
refcount via ovpn_peer_hold().
ovpn_tcp_socket_wait_finish() (called inside ovpn_socket_release())
drains strparser and the tx work, but does not synchronize with
userspace syscall callers that already hold a peer reference. If
ovpn_nl_peer_modify() or ovpn_peer_add() returns an error while such
a caller is in flight - notably an ovpn_tcp_recvmsg() blocked in
__skb_recv_datagram() on peer->tcp.user_queue - the direct
ovpn_peer_release() destroys the peer while the caller still holds
the reference, and the eventual ovpn_peer_put() from that caller
operates on freed memory.
Replace the direct destructor call with ovpn_peer_put() so the kref
correctly defers destruction until the last reference is dropped.
In the common case where no concurrent user is present, behaviour is
unchanged: the kref hits zero immediately and ovpn_peer_release_kref()
runs the same destructor.
With this conversion ovpn_peer_release() has no callers outside peer.c
- ovpn_peer_release_kref() in the same translation unit is the only
remaining user - so make it static and drop its declaration from
peer.h.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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