In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: Add lwtunnel encap size of all siblings in nexthop calculation
In function rt6_nlmsg_size(), the length of nexthop is calculated
by multipling the nexthop length of fib6_info and the number of
siblings. However if the fib6_info has no lwtunnel but the siblings
have lwtunnels, the nexthop length is less than it should be, and
it will trigger a warning in inet6_rt_notify() as follows:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6082 at net/ipv6/route.c:6180 inet6_rt_notify+0x120/0x130
......
Call Trace:
fib6_add_rt2node+0x685/0xa30
fib6_add+0x96/0x1b0
ip6_route_add+0x50/0xd0
inet6_rtm_newroute+0x97/0xa0
rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x156/0x3d0
netlink_rcv_skb+0x5a/0x110
netlink_unicast+0x246/0x350
netlink_sendmsg+0x250/0x4c0
sock_sendmsg+0x66/0x70
___sys_sendmsg+0x7c/0xd0
__sys_sendmsg+0x5d/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
This bug can be reproduced by script:
ip -6 addr add 2002::2/64 dev ens2
ip -6 route add 100::/64 via 2002::1 dev ens2 metric 100
for i in 10 20 30 40 50 60 70;
do
ip link add link ens2 name ipv_$i type ipvlan
ip -6 addr add 2002::$i/64 dev ipv_$i
ifconfig ipv_$i up
done
for i in 10 20 30 40 50 60;
do
ip -6 route append 100::/64 encap ip6 dst 2002::$i via 2002::1
dev ipv_$i metric 100
done
ip -6 route append 100::/64 via 2002::1 dev ipv_70 metric 100
This patch fixes it by adding nexthop_len of every siblings using
rt6_nh_nlmsg_size().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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 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