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.
The CVE record's CNA (kernel.org) lists Linux versions 5.15.179 up to but not including 5.15.224, 6.1.129 up to but not including 6.1.191, 6.6.79 up to but not including 6.6.160 and 6.12.16 up to but not including 6.12.113 as affected, and Linux versions before 6.13 and 7.3 and later as unaffected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv4: stop PMTU walk when nexthop group shrinks
Commit 7d3f3b4367f3 ("net: ipv4: Cache pmtu for all packet paths if
multipath enabled") made __ip_rt_update_pmtu() update every path.
For nexthop objects, fib_info_num_path() and fib_info_nhc()
independently load nh->nh_grp. RCU protects each group's lifetime but
does not make the loads observe the same group. If replacement shrinks
the group after the loop accepts an index, fib_info_nhc() returns NULL
and update_or_create_fnhe() dereferences it.
A deterministic probe only widened the existing window between the real
operations. On v7.2, an RTM_NEWNEXTHOP replacement published a
one-member group after the PMTU reader accepted index 1 from a two-member
group, producing:
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
RIP: update_or_create_fnhe+0x45/0x15b0
Stop when the indexed path is absent. Groups are dense, so no later
index exists in that snapshot. The same real-writer window completed
114,423 PMTU iterations without an oops with this check. A reproducer
is available on request.
Replacement requires CAP_NET_ADMIN in the network namespace. Where
unprivileged user namespaces are permitted, a local user can obtain it
in a new user and network namespace.
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. 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: 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