In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign
The semantics for bpf_sk_assign are as follows:
sk = some_lookup_func()
bpf_sk_assign(skb, sk)
bpf_sk_release(sk)
That is, the sk is not consumed by bpf_sk_assign. The function
therefore needs to make sure that sk lives long enough to be
consumed from __inet_lookup_skb. The path through the stack for a
TCPv4 packet is roughly:
netif_receive_skb_core: takes RCU read lock
__netif_receive_skb_core:
sch_handle_ingress:
tcf_classify:
bpf_sk_assign()
deliver_ptype_list_skb:
deliver_skb:
ip_packet_type->func == ip_rcv:
ip_rcv_core:
ip_rcv_finish_core:
dst_input:
ip_local_deliver:
ip_local_deliver_finish:
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu:
tcp_v4_rcv:
__inet_lookup_skb:
skb_steal_sock
The existing helper takes advantage of the fact that everything
happens in the same RCU critical section: for sockets with
SOCK_RCU_FREE set bpf_sk_assign never takes a reference.
skb_steal_sock then checks SOCK_RCU_FREE again and does sock_put
if necessary.
This approach assumes that SOCK_RCU_FREE is never set on a sk
between bpf_sk_assign and skb_steal_sock, but this invariant is
violated by unhashed UDP sockets. A new UDP socket is created
in TCP_CLOSE state but without SOCK_RCU_FREE set. That flag is only
added in udp_lib_get_port() which happens when a socket is bound.
When bpf_sk_assign was added it wasn't possible to access unhashed
UDP sockets from BPF, so this wasn't a problem. This changed
in commit 0c48eefae712 ("sock_map: Lift socket state restriction
for datagram sockets"), but the helper wasn't adjusted accordingly.
The following sequence of events will therefore lead to a refcount
leak:
- Add socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) to a sockmap.
- Pull socket out of sockmap and bpf_sk_assign it. Since
SOCK_RCU_FREE is not set we increment the refcount.
- bind() or connect() the socket, setting SOCK_RCU_FREE.
- skb_steal_sock will now set refcounted = false due to
SOCK_RCU_FREE.
- tcp_v4_rcv() skips sock_put().
Fix the problem by rejecting unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign().
This matches the behaviour of __inet_lookup_skb which is ultimately
the goal of bpf_sk_assign().
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