In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix netns reference imbalance in conntrack kfuncs
The opts argument of the BPF conntrack kfuncs can point to a shared
map value. __bpf_nf_ct_lookup() and __bpf_nf_ct_alloc_entry() read
opts->netns_id separately when acquiring and releasing the network
namespace reference.
The reference imbalance can occur as follows:
CPU 0 CPU 1
read opts->netns_id (-1)
skip get_net_ns_by_id()
write opts->netns_id (id)
read opts->netns_id (id)
put_net(net) /* no matching get */
The reverse transition leaks the reference. Repeating the unmatched put
can destroy a live namespace and crash later users.
The kernel reported:
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x00000000000000e8-0x00000000000000ef]
RIP: 0010:bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0x52c/0x1700
Call Trace:
__sys_bpf+0x1662/0x50c0
__x64_sys_bpf+0x73/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x540
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
Snapshot every input field of opts with READ_ONCE() before validating or
using it. The netns_id snapshot keeps the namespace get/put pair
balanced, while the other snapshots keep the remaining options from
changing partway through an invocation. The individual reads can still
observe an inconsistent combination during a concurrent update, but each
selected field value remains stable for that invocation.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% 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; 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)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 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