In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: nft_ct: skip expectations for confirmed conntrack
nft_ct_expect_obj_eval() calls nf_ct_ext_add() for a confirmed
conntrack entry. However, nf_ct_ext_add() can only be called for
!nf_ct_is_confirmed().
[ 1825.349056] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1279 at net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c:48 nf_ct_xt_add+0x18e/0x1a0 [nf_conntrack]
[ 1825.351391] RIP: 0010:nf_ct_ext_add+0x18e/0x1a0 [nf_conntrack]
[ 1825.351493] Code: 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f c3 41 bc 0a 00 00 00 e9 15 ff ff ff ba 09 00 00 00 31 f6 4c 89 ff e8 69 6c 3d e9 eb 96 45 31 ed eb cd <0f> 0b e9 b1 fe ff ff e8 86 79 14 e9 eb bf 0f 1f 40 00 0f 1f 44 00
[ 1825.351721] RSP: 0018:ffffc90002e1f1e8 EFLAGS: 00010202
[ 1825.351790] RAX: 000000000000000e RBX: ffff88814f5783c0 RCX: ffffffffc0e4f887
[ 1825.351881] RDX: dffffc0000000000 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: ffff88814f578440
[ 1825.351971] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff88814f578447
[ 1825.352060] R10: ffffed1029eaf088 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff88814f578440
[ 1825.352150] R13: ffff8882053f3a00 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000a20
[ 1825.352240] FS: 00007f992261c900(0000) GS:ffff889faec00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 1825.352343] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 1825.352417] CR2: 000056070a4d1158 CR3: 000000015efe0000 CR4: 0000000000350ee0
[ 1825.352508] Call Trace:
[ 1825.352544] nf_ct_helper_ext_add+0x10/0x60 [nf_conntrack]
[ 1825.352641] nft_ct_expect_obj_eval+0x1b8/0x1e0 [nft_ct]
[ 1825.352716] nft_do_chain+0x232/0x850 [nf_tables]
Add the ct helper extension only for unconfirmed conntrack. Skip rule
evaluation if the ct helper extension does not exist. Thus, you can
only create expectations from the first packet.
It should be possible to remove this limitation by adding a new action
to attach a generic ct helper to the first packet. Then, use this ct
helper extension from follow up packets to create the ct expectation.
While at it, add a missing check to skip the template conntrack too
and remove check for IPCT_UNTRACK which is implicit to !ct.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.6 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.6 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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