CVE-2026-80590

HIGHPre-NVD 8.68.6
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.6 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-08-28. A secondary CVSS source baseline 8.6; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
8.6EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.6%CVSS: 8.6Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly

A virtio_net_hdr (tun/tap, or AF_PACKET with PACKET_VNET_HDR) can mark an IPv4 or IPv6 fragment as GSO; nothing relates gso_type to frag_off. inet_frag_reasm_prepare()/inet_frag_reasm_finish() keep the first fragment's skb as the head of the reassembled datagram, including its shinfo->gso_size/gso_type/gso_segs, and chain the remaining fragments on frag_list with whatever linear/paged layout they arrived with.

After ip_defrag() (ip_local_deliver(), nf_defrag_ipv4, ...) the reassembled skb therefore still claims to be GSO (SKB_GSO_DODGY), and the next software segmentation point - udp_rcv_segment() on local delivery, validate_xmit_skb(), or the ip_finish_output_gso() slow path - hands it to skb_segment(). skb_segment()'s frag_list walk assumes GRO-shaped input and hits one of its BUG_ON()s. Two writes to a tap by an unprivileged user in its own userns are enough:

kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4899! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI CPU: 0 UID: 1000 PID: 82 Comm: poc Not tainted 7.2.0-pentest+ #2 RIP: 0010:skb_segment+0x20ca/0x48b0 Call Trace: __udp_gso_segment+0x29a/0x27d0 udp4_ufo_fragment+0x458/0x6c0 inet_gso_segment+0x429/0x1340 skb_mac_gso_segment+0x233/0x4f0 __skb_gso_segment+0x308/0x660 udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x440/0xad0 udp_unicast_rcv_skb+0xc7/0x2c0 udp_rcv+0x16ce/0x2260 ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x197/0x2d0 ip_local_deliver+0x430/0x690 ip_rcv+0x16f/0x1f0 __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x15e/0x1c0 __netif_receive_skb+0x1e/0x110 netif_receive_skb+0xf6/0x5c0 tun_rx_batched.isra.0+0x3ab/0x790 tun_get_user+0x17c3/0x3550 tun_chr_write_iter+0xba/0x1b0 vfs_write+0x646/0x1130 Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt

This runs with BH disabled, so it is a panic rather than an oops. The same is reachable with CAP_NET_RAW in a netns where a defrag point precedes a GSO point, and from a guest whose VMM forwards virtio_net_hdr to a tap. The SKB_GSO_DODGY frag_list checks added by commit 3dcbdb134f32 ("net: gso: Fix skb_segment splat when splitting gso_size mangled skb having linear-headed frag_list") and by commit 9e4b7a99a03a ("net: gso: fix panic on frag_list with mixed head alloc types") do not cover it: page-backed heads skip them, and kmalloc heads skip them when gso_size == skb_headlen(head), which the sender controls.

An skb entering a frag queue is an IP fragment by definition and cannot legitimately carry GSO state: GRO does not merge fragments and the stack segments before it fragments, so only untrusted sources are affected. This has been reachable since commit f43798c27684 ("tun: Allow GSO using virtio_net_hdr"), the first path that let userspace attach GSO metadata to an IP fragment. Reset the GSO fields of every fragment as it is queued, in inet_frag_queue_insert(), which IPv4, IPv6, nf_conntrack_reasm and 6lowpan reassembly share; then neither the head nor the frag_list members of the reassembled skb carry them (the members matter too: the ip_do_fragment()/ip6_fragment() fast paths send them out as they are). The head may remain CHECKSUM_PARTIAL; that is already accepted on receive and resolved by skb_checksum_help() in ip_do_fragment()/ip6_fragment() on forward.

Tested on top of net.git (dc4b95b8fee9), x86_64: the tap reproducer above, two further IPv4 frag_list geometries that reach BUG_ON(i >= nfrags) and BUG_ON(!list_skb->head_frag), and an IPv6 fragment-header variant (udp6_ufo_fragment()) each panic the unpatched kernel; with this patch all four datagrams are delivered intact and nothing is logged.

CVSS v3
8.6
EG Score
8.6HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
54
EG Risk 54/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity86% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.6 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.6% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
46th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.6 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.6 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-18). 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

Published

August 28, 2026

Last Modified

October 19, 2026

Advisory Details (8)

Auto-updated Aug 29, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/da857e448322a2e871ce3ecc2900027041160d43
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/69b73b74d9eb45f5560a8fe4fa406ada580e1340
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c49f04e8d2b94dbb8d9fd99731dd3f00589c8ace
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dec2edb7aaf12a8878b3a03172ea8fc277b8eaad
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3edf721bb4b99d272c336631b44e3d8ff9a4f31b
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/14a8f3e10fa9a5abd6cedcdaa0c0b7ea9a09f234
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/29dda278a5ed272f2230ff4eaa23cf403107bba0
Web page

inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cfdbc8c2e6f9ef5d8b8e54859da03dfe682b0bee

Affected Packages

(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 6.1.99-1 (56 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.187-1: fixed in 6.1.187-1
—
linux-6.126.12.100-1~deb12u1, 6.12.101-1~deb12u1
  • every version up to 6.12.107-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.107-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (34 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.107-1: fixed in 6.12.107-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.1~rc7-1~exp1 (170 versions)
  • every version up to 7.1.12-1: fixed in 7.1.12-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 18× in last 7d / 131× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 239 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 139 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  2. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  3. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  4. 2026-10-19 09:33 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-19 09:33 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-19 09:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  7. 2026-10-19 09:05 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-19 09:05 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-19 09:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  10. 2026-10-18 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  11. 2026-10-18 03:10 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  13. 2026-10-16 20:31 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-16 20:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  15. 2026-10-16 19:37 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-16 19:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  17. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  18. 2026-10-15 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  19. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  20. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  21. 2026-10-13 06:28 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-13 06:28 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-10-13 06:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  24. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  25. 2026-10-12 14:57 UTCEG score recompute
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-11 19:21 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-11 16:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-11 13:55 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  5. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  6. 2026-10-10 12:28 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-10 12:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  8. 2026-10-10 01:23 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-10 01:23 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-10 01:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  11. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  12. 2026-10-09 02:48 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-09 02:48 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-09 02:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  15. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  16. 2026-10-08 01:00 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-08 01:00 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-08 01:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  19. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  20. 2026-10-07 10:04 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-07 10:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  22. 2026-10-06 22:58 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-06 22:58 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-10-06 22:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  25. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  26. 2026-10-06 11:54 UTCVendor advisory
  27. 2026-10-06 11:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  28. 2026-10-06 00:50 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-10-06 00:50 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-10-06 00:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  31. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  32. 2026-10-05 12:46 UTCVendor advisory
  33. 2026-10-05 12:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  34. 2026-10-05 01:41 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-10-05 01:41 UTCVendor advisory
  36. 2026-10-05 01:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  37. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  38. 2026-10-04 14:37 UTCVendor advisory
  39. 2026-10-04 14:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  40. 2026-10-04 03:11 UTCVendor advisory
  41. 2026-10-04 03:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  42. 2026-10-03 16:08 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-10-03 16:08 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-10-03 16:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  45. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  46. 2026-10-03 05:03 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-10-03 05:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  48. 2026-10-02 17:58 UTCEG score recompute
  49. 2026-10-02 17:58 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-10-02 17:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  51. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  52. 2026-10-02 06:54 UTCEG score recompute
  53. 2026-10-02 06:54 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-10-02 06:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  55. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  56. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCVendor advisory
  57. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  58. 2026-10-01 06:55 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-10-01 06:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  60. 2026-09-30 19:51 UTCEG score recompute
  61. 2026-09-30 19:51 UTCVendor advisory
  62. 2026-09-30 19:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  63. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  64. 2026-09-30 03:58 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-09-30 03:58 UTCVendor advisory
  66. 2026-09-30 03:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  67. 2026-09-29 11:12 UTCVendor advisory
  68. 2026-09-29 11:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  69. 2026-09-28 23:40 UTCEG score recompute
  70. 2026-09-28 23:40 UTCVendor advisory
  71. 2026-09-28 23:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  72. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  73. 2026-09-28 12:35 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-09-28 12:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-m48g-6cv9-p3rh · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
  75. 2026-09-28 01:30 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-80590?
CVE-2026-80590 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 28, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: inet: frags: strip GSO state from fragments before reassembly A virtionethdr (tun/tap, or AFPACKET with PACKETVNET_HDR) can mark an IPv4 or IPv6 fragment as GSO; nothing relates gsotype to fragoff.…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-80590 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-80590 was published on August 28, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 19, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-80590 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-80590 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-80590?
CVE-2026-80590 has a CVSS base score of 8.6 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-80590?
A fix for CVE-2026-80590 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-80590 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-80590

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-80590?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.