In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf, sockmap: Fix cork use-after-free in tcp_bpf_sendmsg()
tcp_bpf_sendmsg() keeps msg_tx across sk_stream_wait_memory(), which
drops and reacquires the socket lock. Its error path tries to decide
whether msg_tx names the local temporary message by comparing it with
the current value of psock->cork.
This comparison is unsafe when two threads send on the same socket:
Thread A Thread B
msg_tx = psock->cork
sk_msg_alloc() fails
sk_stream_wait_memory()
releases the socket lock acquires the socket lock
completes the cork
psock->cork = NULL
frees the cork
reacquires the socket lock
msg_tx != psock->cork
sk_msg_free(msg_tx)
The stale cork is therefore mistaken for the local temporary message
and freed again. KASAN reported:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in sk_msg_free+0x49/0x50
Read of size 4 at addr ffff88810c908800 by task poc/90
Call Trace:
sk_msg_free+0x49/0x50
tcp_bpf_sendmsg+0x14f5/0x1cc0
__sys_sendto+0x32c/0x3a0
__x64_sys_sendto+0xdb/0x1b0
Allocated by task 89:
__kasan_kmalloc+0x8f/0xa0
tcp_bpf_sendmsg+0x16b3/0x1cc0
Freed by task 91:
__kasan_slab_free+0x43/0x70
kfree+0x131/0x3c0
tcp_bpf_sendmsg+0xec3/0x1cc0
msg_tx can only name the stack-local tmp or the shared cork. Check for
tmp directly so a changed psock->cork cannot turn a shared message into
an apparent local one.
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