In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/sched: act_ct: fix sk_buff leak when the header checks reject a packet
tcf_ct_handle_fragments() runs its header sanity checks before handing
anything to the defragmentation engine:
if (family == NFPROTO_IPV4)
err = tcf_ct_ipv4_is_fragment(skb, &frag);
else
err = tcf_ct_ipv6_is_fragment(skb, &frag);
if (err || !frag)
return err;
tcf_ct_ipv4_is_fragment() returns -EINVAL or -ENOMEM;
tcf_ct_ipv6_is_fragment() adds -EPROTO when ipv6_find_hdr() fails. None of
them frees or queues the skb, so on that path the caller still owns it.
tcf_ct_act() however funnels every non-zero return into the
ownership-transfer exit:
err = tcf_ct_handle_fragments(net, skb, family, p->zone, &defrag);
if (err)
goto out_frag;
...
out_frag:
if (err != -EINPROGRESS)
tcf_action_inc_drop_qstats(&c->common);
return TC_ACT_CONSUMED;
TC_ACT_CONSUMED means the action took ownership of the skb, so no caller
frees it - sch_handle_ingress(), sch_handle_egress() and
tcf_qevent_handle() all deliberately skip the free for that verdict. The
skb is therefore orphaned: one sk_buff plus its data buffer is leaked per
malformed packet, unbounded. Note the drop counter is already incremented
for these errors, so the statistics claim a drop that never happens.
Three different ownership states reach out_frag: today - the skb may be
queued by the defrag engine (-EINPROGRESS), already freed by
nf_ct_handle_fragments(), or still owned by us. Tell the caller which of
those it is, and free the packet ourselves in the last case, which
restores the TC_ACT_SHOT behaviour that predated the Fixes: commit.
Reproduced on v7.2-rc6 with a 54-byte frame carrying a 40-byte IPv6
header with nexthdr = 0 (hop-by-hop) and nothing after it, on a
clsact ingress chain with "action ct". kmemleak reports one leaked
232-byte skbuff_head_cache object plus its 704-byte data buffer per
packet; with this patch it reports none.
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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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