In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ax25: Fix refcount imbalance on inbound connections
When releasing a socket in ax25_release(), we call netdev_put() to
decrease the refcount on the associated ax.25 device. However, the
execution path for accepting an incoming connection never calls
netdev_hold(). This imbalance leads to refcount errors, and ultimately
to kernel crashes.
A typical call trace for the above situation will start with one of the
following errors:
refcount_t: decrement hit 0; leaking memory.
refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
And will then have a trace like:
Call Trace:
? show_regs+0x64/0x70
? __warn+0x83/0x120
? refcount_warn_saturate+0xb2/0x100
? report_bug+0x158/0x190
? prb_read_valid+0x20/0x30
? handle_bug+0x3e/0x70
? exc_invalid_op+0x1c/0x70
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1f/0x30
? refcount_warn_saturate+0xb2/0x100
? refcount_warn_saturate+0xb2/0x100
ax25_release+0x2ad/0x360
__sock_release+0x35/0xa0
sock_close+0x19/0x20
[...]
On reboot (or any attempt to remove the interface), the kernel gets
stuck in an infinite loop:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for ax0 to become free. Usage count = 0
This patch corrects these issues by ensuring that we call netdev_hold()
and ax25_dev_hold() for new connections in ax25_accept(). This makes the
logic leading to ax25_accept() match the logic for ax25_bind(): in both
cases we increment the refcount, which is ultimately decremented in
ax25_release().
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 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