In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netrom: Fix a memory leak in nr_heartbeat_expiry()
syzbot reported a memory leak in nr_create() [0].
Commit 409db27e3a2e ("netrom: Fix use-after-free of a listening socket.")
added sock_hold() to the nr_heartbeat_expiry() function, where
a) a socket has a SOCK_DESTROY flag or
b) a listening socket has a SOCK_DEAD flag.
But in the case "a," when the SOCK_DESTROY flag is set, the file descriptor
has already been closed and the nr_release() function has been called.
So it makes no sense to hold the reference count because no one will
call another nr_destroy_socket() and put it as in the case "b."
nr_connect
nr_establish_data_link
nr_start_heartbeat
nr_release
switch (nr->state)
case NR_STATE_3
nr->state = NR_STATE_2
sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_DESTROY);
nr_rx_frame
nr_process_rx_frame
switch (nr->state)
case NR_STATE_2
nr_state2_machine()
nr_disconnect()
nr_sk(sk)->state = NR_STATE_0
sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)
nr_heartbeat_expiry
switch (nr->state)
case NR_STATE_0
if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DESTROY) ||
(sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN
&& sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)))
sock_hold() // ( !!! )
nr_destroy_socket()
To fix the memory leak, let's call sock_hold() only for a listening socket.
Found by InfoTeCS on behalf of Linux Verification Center
(linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.
[0]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d327a1f3b12e1e206c16
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 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