In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: fix geneve_opt length integer overflow
struct geneve_opt uses 5 bit length for each single option, which
means every vary size option should be smaller than 128 bytes.
However, all current related Netlink policies cannot promise this
length condition and the attacker can exploit a exact 128-byte size
option to *fake* a zero length option and confuse the parsing logic,
further achieve heap out-of-bounds read.
One example crash log is like below:
[ 3.905425] ==================================================================
[ 3.905925] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in nla_put+0xa9/0xe0
[ 3.906255] Read of size 124 at addr ffff888005f291cc by task poc/177
[ 3.906646]
[ 3.906775] CPU: 0 PID: 177 Comm: poc-oob-read Not tainted 6.1.132 #1
[ 3.907131] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 3.907784] Call Trace:
[ 3.907925]
[ 3.908048] dump_stack_lvl+0x44/0x5c
[ 3.908258] print_report+0x184/0x4be
[ 3.909151] kasan_report+0xc5/0x100
[ 3.909539] kasan_check_range+0xf3/0x1a0
[ 3.909794] memcpy+0x1f/0x60
[ 3.909968] nla_put+0xa9/0xe0
[ 3.910147] tunnel_key_dump+0x945/0xba0
[ 3.911536] tcf_action_dump_1+0x1c1/0x340
[ 3.912436] tcf_action_dump+0x101/0x180
[ 3.912689] tcf_exts_dump+0x164/0x1e0
[ 3.912905] fw_dump+0x18b/0x2d0
[ 3.913483] tcf_fill_node+0x2ee/0x460
[ 3.914778] tfilter_notify+0xf4/0x180
[ 3.915208] tc_new_tfilter+0xd51/0x10d0
[ 3.918615] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x4a2/0x560
[ 3.919118] netlink_rcv_skb+0xcd/0x200
[ 3.919787] netlink_unicast+0x395/0x530
[ 3.921032] netlink_sendmsg+0x3d0/0x6d0
[ 3.921987] __sock_sendmsg+0x99/0xa0
[ 3.922220] __sys_sendto+0x1b7/0x240
[ 3.922682] __x64_sys_sendto+0x72/0x90
[ 3.922906] do_syscall_64+0x5e/0x90
[ 3.923814] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
[ 3.924122] RIP: 0033:0x7e83eab84407
[ 3.924331] Code: 48 89 fa 4c 89 df e8 38 aa 00 00 8b 93 08 03 00 00 59 5e 48 83 f8 fc 74 1a 5b c3 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 48 8b 44 24 10 0f 05 <5b> c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 83 e2 39 83 faf
[ 3.925330] RSP: 002b:00007ffff505e370 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002c
[ 3.925752] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007e83eaafa740 RCX: 00007e83eab84407
[ 3.926173] RDX: 00000000000001a8 RSI: 00007ffff505e3c0 RDI: 0000000000000003
[ 3.926587] RBP: 00007ffff505f460 R08: 00007e83eace1000 R09: 000000000000000c
[ 3.926977] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00007ffff505f3c0
[ 3.927367] R13: 00007ffff505f5c8 R14: 00007e83ead1b000 R15: 00005d4fbbe6dcb8
Fix these issues by enforing correct length condition in related
policies.
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
- 0.3% 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 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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