In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tipc: do not update mtu if msg_max is too small in mtu negotiation
When doing link mtu negotiation, a malicious peer may send Activate msg
with a very small mtu, e.g. 4 in Shuang's testing, without checking for
the minimum mtu, l->mtu will be set to 4 in tipc_link_proto_rcv(), then
n->links[bearer_id].mtu is set to 4294967228, which is a overflow of
'4 - INT_H_SIZE - EMSG_OVERHEAD' in tipc_link_mss().
With tipc_link.mtu = 4, tipc_link_xmit() kept printing the warning:
tipc: Too large msg, purging xmit list 1 5 0 40 4!
tipc: Too large msg, purging xmit list 1 15 0 60 4!
And with tipc_link_entry.mtu 4294967228, a huge skb was allocated in
named_distribute(), and when purging it in tipc_link_xmit(), a crash
was even caused:
general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x2100001011000dd: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.3.0.neta #19
RIP: 0010:kfree_skb_list_reason+0x7e/0x1f0
Call Trace:
skb_release_data+0xf9/0x1d0
kfree_skb_reason+0x40/0x100
tipc_link_xmit+0x57a/0x740 [tipc]
tipc_node_xmit+0x16c/0x5c0 [tipc]
tipc_named_node_up+0x27f/0x2c0 [tipc]
tipc_node_write_unlock+0x149/0x170 [tipc]
tipc_rcv+0x608/0x740 [tipc]
tipc_udp_recv+0xdc/0x1f0 [tipc]
udp_queue_rcv_one_skb+0x33e/0x620
udp_unicast_rcv_skb.isra.72+0x75/0x90
__udp4_lib_rcv+0x56d/0xc20
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x100/0x2d0
This patch fixes it by checking the new mtu against tipc_bearer_min_mtu(),
and not updating mtu if it is too small.
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
- 0.3% 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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