In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: tcp: fix double sock release on batch realloc
bpf_iter_tcp_batch() releases the current batch via
bpf_iter_tcp_put_batch(), which drops the socket refs and rewrites
each slot with the socket cookie, then grows the batch. cur_sk/end_sk
are kept for bpf_iter_tcp_resume(), but on realloc failure the function
returns ERR_PTR() before resume runs, leaving cur_sk < end_sk over
slots that now hold cookies rather than sock pointers.
bpf_iter_tcp_seq_stop() then calls bpf_iter_tcp_put_batch() again and
dereferences a cookie as a struct sock.
Empty the batch on the failure path so stop() does not release it
again. The sockets were already freed by the first
bpf_iter_tcp_put_batch(), so nothing leaks, and a later read() rescans
the bucket from the start instead of skipping it. The sibling
GFP_NOWAIT failure path still holds real socket references and is left
for stop() to release.
BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in __sock_gen_cookie
Read of size 8 at addr 0000000000000059 by task exploit
...
__sock_gen_cookie (net/core/sock_diag.c:28)
bpf_iter_tcp_put_batch (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2918)
bpf_iter_tcp_seq_stop (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:3270)
bpf_seq_read (kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c:205)
vfs_read (fs/read_write.c:572)
ksys_read (fs/read_write.c:716)
do_syscall_64
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)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 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