In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sctp: clear new_transport when removing a peer
sctp_process_asconf_param() stores a newly added peer transport in
asoc->new_transport. After all parameters in the ASCONF chunk have been
processed, sctp_sf_do_asconf() uses this pointer to send a HEARTBEAT to the
new transport.
An authenticated ASCONF from a remote SCTP peer can add a transport and
remove it again with a wildcard DEL-IP parameter in the same chunk. The
wildcard deletion preserves the transport on which the ASCONF arrived, but
removes the newly added transport through
sctp_assoc_del_nonprimary_peers(). The removal does not clear
asoc->new_transport, leaving it pointing to the removed transport.
sctp_sf_do_asconf() then creates a HEARTBEAT whose chunk->transport points
to the removed transport without holding a transport reference. During
local address replacement, src_out_of_asoc_ok keeps this HEARTBEAT on
control_chunk_list. After the transport is freed by RCU, a successful
ASCONF_ACK for the replacement address releases the queued HEARTBEAT and
sctp_outq_select_transport() reads the freed transport's state.
The issue was found during a static audit of SCTP objects. With an
authenticated peer, the reproducer triggered the same KASAN report in 2
of 2 unpatched runs on a KASAN-enabled netdev/main kernel:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in sctp_outq_select_transport
Read of size 4 at addr ffff88800b9bd95c by task python3/197
Call Trace:
sctp_outq_select_transport+0x549/0x8b0 [sctp]
sctp_outq_flush+0x306/0x2c60 [sctp]
sctp_transport_immediate_rtx+0xaf/0x260 [sctp]
sctp_process_asconf_ack+0xa48/0xf70 [sctp]
Allocated by task 197:
sctp_transport_new+0x68/0x650 [sctp]
sctp_assoc_add_peer+0x258/0x12a0 [sctp]
sctp_process_asconf+0x5e9/0x1090 [sctp]
Last potentially related work creation:
__call_rcu_common.constprop.0+0x77/0xb70
sctp_assoc_del_nonprimary_peers+0x7c/0xd0 [sctp]
sctp_process_asconf+0xd9c/0x1090 [sctp]
The first invalid access was a four-byte read of transport->state at
net/sctp/outqueue.c:833. The same reproducer completed the full
authenticated ASCONF and local-address replacement sequence with this
change without a KASAN report or oops.
Clear new_transport when its peer is removed, before it can be used to
create the HEARTBEAT.
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
- 0.5% 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