In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ovpn: skip rehash for peers already removed from by_id
ovpn_nl_peer_set_doit() resolves the target peer via
ovpn_peer_get_by_id() before taking ovpn->lock. In the window between
the lookup (which only takes a refcount) and the subsequent
spin_lock_bh(&ovpn->lock), a concurrent OVPN_CMD_PEER_DEL, keepalive
expiry, or socket teardown can take ovpn->lock first, run
ovpn_peer_remove() to unhash the peer from all four tables (by_id,
by_vpn_addr4/6, by_transp_addr) and release the lock. set_doit then
acquires ovpn->lock and calls ovpn_peer_hash_vpn_ip(), which
re-inserts the now-removed peer back into the rehashing tables.
The same race affects the float path: ovpn_peer_endpoints_update()
holds only a refcount and acquires ovpn->lock very late (after async
AEAD decrypt and a netlink notification), then rehashes the peer
in the by_transp_addr table.
The resurrected peer becomes reachable again from the RX lookup
(ovpn_peer_get_by_transp_addr) and the TX VPN-IP lookup, even though
userspace believes it is gone. Once the data-path refcount drops the
peer is freed via call_rcu while the hash entries embedded in it
remain linked, opening a UAF window.
Bail out of the rehash when hash_entry_id is unhashed, mirroring
the sentinel already used by ovpn_peer_remove() to detect the
already-removed state. The check is safe under ovpn->lock, which
serializes every mutation of hash_entry_id, and is a no-op for the
add path because ovpn_peer_add_mp() inserts hash_entry_id before
calling ovpn_peer_hash_vpn_ip().
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
- 0.6% 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; 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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