In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bonding: alb: re-check primary_is_promisc under RTNL in bond_alb_monitor
bond_alb_monitor() reads primary_is_promisc under RCU, then drops RCU and
takes RTNL via rtnl_trylock() before undoing the promiscuity it set on the
active slave. In that window the active slave can change under RTNL
(RTM_DELLINK -> __bond_release_one() -> bond_alb_handle_active_change()),
which already drops the promiscuity and clears primary_is_promisc. The
monitor still acts on the stale decision: if the slave was removed with no
failover, curr_active_slave is now NULL and the deref faults; if it failed
over, the stale dev_set_promiscuity(-1) underflows the new slave's
promiscuity counter and pins it in IFF_PROMISC.
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address ...
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
Workqueue: b42 bond_alb_monitor
RIP: 0010:bond_alb_monitor (drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c:1600)
process_one_work (kernel/workqueue.c:3322)
worker_thread (kernel/workqueue.c:3486)
kthread (kernel/kthread.c:436)
ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:158)
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
Re-check primary_is_promisc (and curr_active_slave) after taking RTNL so
the monitor only undoes an increment it still owns. The other bonding
monitors already re-read state under RTNL in their commit phase
(bond_miimon_commit/bond_ab_arp_commit); bond_alb_monitor() was the only
one acting on the pre-trylock decision.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.3 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 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 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