In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
can: isotp: fix potential CAN frame reception race in isotp_rcv()
When receiving a CAN frame the current code logic does not consider
concurrently receiving processes which do not show up in real world
usage.
Ziyang Xuan writes:
The following syz problem is one of the scenarios. so->rx.len is
changed by isotp_rcv_ff() during isotp_rcv_cf(), so->rx.len equals
0 before alloc_skb() and equals 4096 after alloc_skb(). That will
trigger skb_over_panic() in skb_put().
=======================================================
CPU: 1 PID: 19 Comm: ksoftirqd/1 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc8-syzkaller #0
RIP: 0010:skb_panic+0x16c/0x16e net/core/skbuff.c:113
Call Trace:
skb_over_panic net/core/skbuff.c:118 [inline]
skb_put.cold+0x24/0x24 net/core/skbuff.c:1990
isotp_rcv_cf net/can/isotp.c:570 [inline]
isotp_rcv+0xa38/0x1e30 net/can/isotp.c:668
deliver net/can/af_can.c:574 [inline]
can_rcv_filter+0x445/0x8d0 net/can/af_can.c:635
can_receive+0x31d/0x580 net/can/af_can.c:665
can_rcv+0x120/0x1c0 net/can/af_can.c:696
__netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x114/0x180 net/core/dev.c:5465
__netif_receive_skb+0x24/0x1b0 net/core/dev.c:5579
Therefore we make sure the state changes and data structures stay
consistent at CAN frame reception time by adding a spin_lock in
isotp_rcv(). This fixes the issue reported by syzkaller but does not
affect real world operation.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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