In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: fix NULL pointer in can_accept_new_subflow
When testing valkey benchmark tool with MPTCP, the kernel panics in
'mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow' because subflow_req->msk is NULL.
Call trace:
mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminator 4)) (P)
subflow_syn_recv_sock (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854)
tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863)
tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268)
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207)
ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234)
ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254)
ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449)
...
According to the debug log, the same req received two SYN-ACK in a very
short time, very likely because the client retransmits the syn ack due
to multiple reasons.
Even if the packets are transmitted with a relevant time interval, they
can be processed by the server on different CPUs concurrently). The
'subflow_req->msk' ownership is transferred to the subflow the first,
and there will be a risk of a null pointer dereference here.
This patch fixes this issue by moving the 'subflow_req->msk' under the
own_req == true conditional.
Note that the !msk check in subflow_hmac_valid() can be dropped, because
the same check already exists under the own_req mpj branch where the
code has been moved to.
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. 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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