In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Reject redirect helpers without a bpf_net_context
The bpf_redirect*() helpers and skb_do_redirect() obtain the per-task
bpf_redirect_info via bpf_net_ctx_get_ri(), which dereferences the
current->bpf_net_context unconditionally. That context is established
on the paths that run tc BPF such as sch_handle_{ingress,egress}(),
*except* for the case where {cls,act}_bpf was attached to a proper
qdisc. A program running from there reaches the NULL deref in two ways:
* It calls bpf_redirect() directly, which dereferences the context at
the top of the helper:
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: red limit 1MB min 10KB max 20KB \
avpkt 1000 burst 100 qevent early_drop block 10
tc filter add block 10 pref 1 bpf obj redirect.o
* It simply returns TC_ACT_REDIRECT without helper call: tcf_qevent_handle()
then dispatches to skb_do_redirect(), which dereferences the context
Rather than extending bpf_net_context management into the qdisc path,
make the redirect helpers refuse to operate when no context exists, and
have tcf_qevent_handle() drop a TC_ACT_REDIRECT verdict instead of
calling skb_do_redirect(). Previous behaviour was a crash, so nothing
regresses by not supporting it.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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