In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/sched: cls_api: Handle TC_ACT_CONSUMED in tcf_qevent_handle
tcf_classify() can return TC_ACT_CONSUMED while the skb is held by the
defragmentation engine (e.g. act_ct on out-of-order fragments). When
that happens the skb is no longer owned by the caller and must not be
touched again.
tcf_qevent_handle() did not handle TC_ACT_CONSUMED: it fell through the
switch and returned the skb to the caller as if classification had
passed. The only qdisc that wires up qevents today is RED, via three call sites
(qe_mark on RED_PROB_MARK/HARD_MARK, qe_early_drop on congestion_drop)
red_enqueue() was continuing to operate on an skb it no longer owns in this
case -- enqueueing it, dropping it, or updating statistics. Resulting in a UAF.
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: red ... qevent early_drop block 10
tc filter add block 10 ... action ct
(with ct defrag enabled and traffic that produces out-of-order
fragments, e.g. a fragmented UDP stream)
Handle TC_ACT_CONSUMED in tcf_qevent_handle() the same way the ingress
and egress fast paths do: treat it as stolen and return NULL without
touching the skb. Unlike the TC_ACT_STOLEN case, the skb must not be
dropped/freed here, as it is no longer owned by us.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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: 3 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 total (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)3 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 total (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