In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
af_packet: Don't send zero-byte data in tpacket_snd().
syzbot reported a WARNING in __dev_queue_xmit() triggered via tpacket_snd():
skb_assert_len
WARNING: at include/linux/skbuff.h:2753 skb_assert_len
WARNING: at __dev_queue_xmit+0x21bc/0x4970 net/core/dev.c:4781
Call Trace:
dev_queue_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:3448 [inline]
packet_xmit+0x243/0x310 net/packet/af_packet.c:276
tpacket_snd net/packet/af_packet.c:2907 [inline]
packet_sendmsg+0x28d6/0x4eb0 net/packet/af_packet.c:3134
When sending 0-byte packets via TPACKET ring buffer on devices with no
hard header (e.g. dev->hard_header_len == 0), tpacket_fill_skb()
populates an skb with skb->len == 0 and returns 0. tpacket_snd() then
forwards this empty skb to packet_xmit(), causing __dev_queue_xmit() to
hit skb_assert_len(skb).
Similar checks exist in packet_snd() via commit dc633700f00f
("net/af_packet: check len when min_header_len equals to 0") and in
packet_sendmsg_spkt() via commit 6a341729fb31 ("af_packet: Don't send
zero-byte data in packet_sendmsg_spkt().").
Return -EINVAL in tpacket_fill_skb() when skb->len is zero to reject
zero-length packets in tpacket_snd().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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