CVE-2026-98123

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scoredTrending — 6 sources updated this week
—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS v2: —Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.

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

sctp: fix soft lockup from unpadded ASCONF-ACK parameter iteration

sctp_verify_asconf() walks ASCONF-ACK parameters with sctp_walk_params(), which advances by SCTP_PAD4(length), while the consumer sctp_get_asconf_response() iterates the same parameters advancing by the raw length, without padding. A single odd-length parameter desynchronises the two walks and makes the consumer interpret attacker-controlled bytes at a misaligned offset.

When those bytes yield a length of zero, the while loop over asconf_ack_len makes no progress, spinning forever in softirq context, and the watchdog reports a soft lockup. All reads stay within the received skb, so the lockup is a pure remote denial of service. A remote peer can trigger it with a crafted ASCONF-ACK on an ADD-IP enabled association with an outstanding ASCONF (RFC 5061 section 4.1.2 requires the chunk to be authenticated, but the predefined empty key id 0 allows the peer to compute the same association HMAC from publicly exchanged parameters, so the gate does not help).

The SCTP_PARAM_ERR_CAUSE case of sctp_verify_asconf() also performs no length check, letting a parameter without a complete error header reach the consumer, which reads errhdr.cause past the end of the parameter, an out-of-bounds read.

Reject SCTP_PARAM_ERR_CAUSE parameters shorter than sizeof(struct sctp_addip_param) + sizeof(struct sctp_errhdr) at the verifier, and advance the consumer iterator with the same padding rule as the verifier to keep the two walks in lockstep. The verifier change guarantees a complete error header in every ERR_CAUSE parameter the consumer can see, so the consumer's asconf_ack_len check is dropped and it returns err_param->cause directly. The consumer padding fix is still required because odd lengths remain valid for SCTP_PARAM_ERR_CAUSE per RFC 5061.

The issue was found by ZeroHive, a vulnerability hunting agent at Tencent Yunding Lab.

CVSS v3
—
EchelonGraph score
Not yet assessedNo source has published severity data for this CVE yet — no CVSS score from NVD or a CNA, no GitHub advisory, and it is not in CISA KEV. This is not a rating of zero; we cannot assess it yet.
EG Score
—
EG Risk
—
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
6th
KEV
Not listed

Published

September 25, 2026

Last Modified

October 3, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-98123(2)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (360 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
linux-6.126.12.100-1~deb12u1, 6.12.101-1~deb12u1, 6.12.107-1~deb12u1
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.111-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (35 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1: fixed in 6.12.111-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (180 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.7-1: fixed in 7.2.7-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 18× in last 7d / 25× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-04 23:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-10-03 11:27 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-03 11:27 UTCGHSA enrichment
  5. 2026-10-03 11:26 UTCNVD update
  6. 2026-10-03 11:11 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-03 11:11 UTCGHSA enrichment
  8. 2026-10-03 11:10 UTCMITRE cvelistV5
  9. 2026-10-03 09:42 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-03 09:41 UTCGHSA enrichment
  11. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-09-30 14:33 UTCGHSA enrichment
  17. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  19. 2026-09-28 06:37 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-09-28 06:37 UTCGHSA enrichment
  21. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-09-25 11:30 UTCNVD update
  24. 2026-09-25 10:48 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-25 10:46 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-98123?
CVE-2026-98123 is a publicly disclosed vulnerability published on September 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sctp: fix soft lockup from unpadded ASCONF-ACK parameter iteration sctpverifyasconf() walks ASCONF-ACK parameters with sctpwalkparams(), which advances by SCTP_PAD4(length), while the consumer sctpgetasconf_response() iterates the…
When was CVE-2026-98123 disclosed?
CVE-2026-98123 was first published on September 25, 2026, with the most recent update on October 3, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-98123 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-98123 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (6th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-98123?
No fix for CVE-2026-98123 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-98123 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-2026-98123

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-98123?

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