In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation
rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length
against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one.
rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it
*includes* the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of
prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3
when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater
than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively.
ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix,
so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or
(prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the
end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that
gets installed, so they are visible to userspace:
# RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2)
# followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe
$ ip -6 route show
2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds
When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those
eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead.
Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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: 14 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 partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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