In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: gro: properly validate BIG TCP aggregation criteria
When GRO attempts to aggregate packets beyond GRO_LEGACY_MAX_SIZE (64KB),
BIG TCP should only be permitted for plain IPv4 TCP and plain IPv6 TCP
(with sufficient MAC header room to insert the temporary HBH jumbo header).
However, commit b1a78b9b9886 ("net: add support for ipv4 big tcp")
loosened the check in skb_gro_receive(), leading to several issues:
- skb_gro_receive() checked skb_headroom(p) instead of the actual space
before the MAC header (p->mac_header). Because skb_headroom(p) includes
mac_len, crafted frames (e.g. injected via AF_PACKET) can pass the check
with p->mac_header < 8 bytes. When ipv6_gro_complete() inserts the
temporary HBH jumbo header, the memmove() starts before skb->head,
causing an out-of-bounds write and wrapping skb->mac_header.
- It allowed non-IP protocols such as software VLAN (ETH_P_8021Q /
ETH_P_8021AD) to aggregate beyond 64KB because
p->protocol != ETH_P_IPV6 was true.
- It checked p->encapsulation instead of NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->encap_mark,
allowing encapsulated flows (e.g. SIT / IPv6-in-IPv4) to aggregate
beyond 64KB.
Fix skb_gro_receive() to strictly enforce:
- NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->proto == IPPROTO_TCP
- Not encapsulated (!NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->encap_mark && !p->encapsulation)
- Protocol must be either ETH_P_IP or ETH_P_IPV6
- If ETH_P_IPV6, p->mac_header must be at least
sizeof(struct hop_jumbo_hdr)
Returning -E2BIG from skb_gro_receive() ensures that packets which cannot
become BIG TCP are cleanly flushed at <= 64KB and delivered intact without
dropping.
This issue does not exist in mainline (7.0+) because the subsystem was
rewritten in commit 81be30c1f5f2 ("net/ipv6: Drop HBH for BIG TCP on RX
side"), making this fix relevant only for older stable branches like
6.18.y.
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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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: 3 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 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)3 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 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