In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sctp: properly validate chunk size in sctp_sf_ootb()
A size validation fix similar to that in Commit 50619dbf8db7 ("sctp: add
size validation when walking chunks") is also required in sctp_sf_ootb()
to address a crash reported by syzbot:
BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in sctp_sf_ootb+0x7f5/0xce0 net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c:3712
sctp_sf_ootb+0x7f5/0xce0 net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c:3712
sctp_do_sm+0x181/0x93d0 net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c:1166
sctp_endpoint_bh_rcv+0xc38/0xf90 net/sctp/endpointola.c:407
sctp_inq_push+0x2ef/0x380 net/sctp/inqueue.c:88
sctp_rcv+0x3831/0x3b20 net/sctp/input.c:243
sctp4_rcv+0x42/0x50 net/sctp/protocol.c:1159
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0xb51/0x13d0 net/ipv4/ip_input.c:205
ip_local_deliver_finish+0x336/0x500 net/ipv4/ip_input.c:233
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
- 0.6% 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