In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smack: tcp: ipv4, fix incorrect labeling
Currently, Smack mirrors the label of incoming tcp/ipv4 connections:
when a label 'foo' connects to a label 'bar' with tcp/ipv4,
'foo' always gets 'foo' in returned ipv4 packets. So,
1) returned packets are incorrectly labeled ('foo' instead of 'bar')
2) 'bar' can write to 'foo' without being authorized to write.
Here is a scenario how to see this:
* Take two machines, let's call them C and S,
with active Smack in the default state
(no settings, no rules, no labeled hosts, only builtin labels)
* At S, add Smack rule 'foo bar w'
(labels 'foo' and 'bar' are instantiated at S at this moment)
* At S, at label 'bar', launch a program
that listens for incoming tcp/ipv4 connections
* From C, at label 'foo', connect to the listener at S.
(label 'foo' is instantiated at C at this moment)
Connection succeedes and works.
* Send some data in both directions.
* Collect network traffic of this connection.
All packets in both directions are labeled with the CIPSO
of the label 'foo'. Hence, label 'bar' writes to 'foo' without
being authorized, and even without ever being known at C.
If anybody cares: exactly the same happens with DCCP.
This behavior 1st manifested in release 2.6.29.4 (see Fixes below)
and it looks unintentional. At least, no explanation was provided.
I changed returned packes label into the 'bar',
to bring it into line with the Smack documentation claims.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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