In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
inet: inet_defrag: prevent sk release while still in use
ip_local_out() and other functions can pass skb->sk as function argument.
If the skb is a fragment and reassembly happens before such function call
returns, the sk must not be released.
This affects skb fragments reassembled via netfilter or similar
modules, e.g. openvswitch or ct_act.c, when run as part of tx pipeline.
Eric Dumazet made an initial analysis of this bug. Quoting Eric:
Calling ip_defrag() in output path is also implying skb_orphan(),
which is buggy because output path relies on sk not disappearing.
A relevant old patch about the issue was :
8282f27449bf ("inet: frag: Always orphan skbs inside ip_defrag()")
[..]
net/ipv4/ip_output.c depends on skb->sk being set, and probably to an
inet socket, not an arbitrary one.
If we orphan the packet in ipvlan, then downstream things like FQ
packet scheduler will not work properly.
We need to change ip_defrag() to only use skb_orphan() when really
needed, ie whenever frag_list is going to be used.
Eric suggested to stash sk in fragment queue and made an initial patch.
However there is a problem with this:
If skb is refragmented again right after, ip_do_fragment() will copy
head->sk to the new fragments, and sets up destructor to sock_wfree.
IOW, we have no choice but to fix up sk_wmem accouting to reflect the
fully reassembled skb, else wmem will underflow.
This change moves the orphan down into the core, to last possible moment.
As ip_defrag_offset is aliased with sk_buff->sk member, we must move the
offset into the FRAG_CB, else skb->sk gets clobbered.
This allows to delay the orphaning long enough to learn if the skb has
to be queued or if the skb is completing the reasm queue.
In the former case, things work as before, skb is orphaned. This is
safe because skb gets queued/stolen and won't continue past reasm engine.
In the latter case, we will steal the skb->sk reference, reattach it to
the head skb, and fix up wmem accouting when inet_frag inflates truesize.
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
- 0.4% 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 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)14 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 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