In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
geneve: validate inner network offset in geneve_gro_complete()
Even with both paths gated on gs->gro_hint, geneve_gro_complete()
re-derives the inner dispatch type and length from the packet and the
current gs->gro_hint, independently of geneve_gro_receive(). The two can
disagree if gs->gro_hint flips under a concurrent geneve_quiesce()/
geneve_unquiesce() (sk_user_data is NULL across a synchronize_net()), or if
the re-read option bytes differ from the ones receive parsed.
geneve_gro_receive() already records the inner network header position in
NAPI_GRO_CB()->inner_network_offset. Have geneve_gro_complete() compute the
offset it is about to dispatch at, adding ETH_HLEN in the ETH_P_TEB case
where eth_gro_complete() steps over the inner MAC header, and bail out if
it lands past inner_network_offset.
Use a lower bound rather than exact equality: between gh_len and the inner
L3 header, geneve_gro_receive() may also have pulled an inner VLAN tag
(vlan_gro_receive() advances the recorded offset past it), which only moves
inner_network_offset further out. A valid frame therefore always satisfies
inner_nh <= inner_network_offset, while a gh_len inflated by a hint
gro_receive() did not honour dispatches past the validated inner header,
i.e. the out-of-bounds completion. Only the latter is rejected.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (10.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 10.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 10.0 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% 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 (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