An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.
CVE-2016-10142
“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.
Score 8.6 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2022-05-14. NVD baseline CVSS 8.6; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2016-1331 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-4jqq-7wwq-485f (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 8.6
- EG Score
- 8.6HIGHmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 40EG Risk 40/100
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.Exploitation2.8% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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. - EPSS PROB
- 2.8%
- EPSS %ILE
- 86th
- 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
- 2.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
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
Published
January 14, 2017
Last Modified
June 17, 2026
Advisory Details (6)
Auto-updated Sep 1, 2026RFC 8021 - Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08Patch Availability(1)
| Vendor / Ecosystem | Fix (by version range) / Patch | Released | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| redhat | kernel-0:2.6.32-696.el6 | 2017-03-21 | redhat |
Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
All Vendor Advisories
(1)
Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 40× 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 96 of 186 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. 4 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 90 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
- 2026-11-03 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-11-02 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-11-01 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-31 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-30 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-29 21:37 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-29 21:37 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-29 21:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4jqq-7wwq-485f · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
- 2026-10-29 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-28 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-27 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-26 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-25 19:50 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-25 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-24 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-23 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-22 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-22 08:35 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-22 08:35 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-22 08:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4jqq-7wwq-485f · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.6
- 2026-10-21 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-20 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-19 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-18 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-18 10:55 UTCEG score recompute
Show 71 moreShow fewer
- 2026-10-17 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-16 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-15 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-14 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-13 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-12 20:46 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-12 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-12 01:10 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-10 19:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-09 20:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 86th percentile
- 2026-10-08 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-10-07 23:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-10-06 15:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-10-05 17:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-10-03 14:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-30 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-30 09:09 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-09-28 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-26 15:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-23 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-20 20:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-19 15:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-18 19:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-17 19:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-15 03:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-13 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-12 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-11 09:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-10 09:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-07 15:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-06 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-02 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-01 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-09-01 03:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-27 14:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-26 14:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-25 13:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-23 00:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-21 23:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-20 22:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-19 16:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 85th percentile
- 2026-08-18 13:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-16 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-16 02:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-15 01:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-12 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-11 13:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-09 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-08 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-07 16:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-06 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-05 19:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-04 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-04 10:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-08-01 04:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-30 01:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-28 15:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-26 14:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-25 14:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-24 14:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-23 14:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-23 01:21 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-23 00:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 22:00 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 14:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-21 15:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-20 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
- 2026-07-19 14:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 2.8% · 84th percentile
Related CVEs(same vendor + same CWE)
Same vendor
9 shownredhat:RHSA-2017:0817
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2016-10142?
When was CVE-2016-10142 made public?
Is CVE-2016-10142 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2016-10142?
How do I remediate CVE-2016-10142?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2016-10142
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2016-10142?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.