In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: gso: Forbid IPv6 TSO with extensions on devices with only IPV6_CSUM
When performing Generic Segmentation Offload (GSO) on an IPv6 packet that
contains extension headers, the kernel incorrectly requests checksum offload
if the egress device only advertises NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM feature, which has
a strict contract: it supports checksum offload only for plain TCP or UDP
over IPv6 and explicitly does not support packets with extension headers.
The current GSO logic violates this contract by failing to disable the feature
for packets with extension headers, such as those used in GREoIPv6 tunnels.
This violation results in the device being asked to perform an operation
it cannot support, leading to a skb_warn_bad_offload warning and a collapse
of network throughput. While device TSO/USO is correctly bypassed in favor
of software GSO for these packets, the GSO stack must be explicitly told not
to request checksum offload.
Mask NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM, NETIF_F_TSO6 and NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4
in gso_features_check if the IPv6 header contains extension headers to compute
checksum in software.
The exception is a BIG TCP extension, which, as stated in commit
68e068cabd2c6c53 ("net: reenable NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM offload for BIG TCP packets"):
"The feature is only enabled on devices that support BIG TCP TSO.
The header is only present for PF_PACKET taps like tcpdump,
and not transmitted by physical devices."
kernel log output (truncated):
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5273 at net/core/dev.c:3535 skb_warn_bad_offload+0x81/0x140
...
Call Trace:
skb_checksum_help+0x12a/0x1f0
validate_xmit_skb+0x1a3/0x2d0
validate_xmit_skb_list+0x4f/0x80
sch_direct_xmit+0x1a2/0x380
__dev_xmit_skb+0x242/0x670
__dev_queue_xmit+0x3fc/0x7f0
ip6_finish_output2+0x25e/0x5d0
ip6_finish_output+0x1fc/0x3f0
ip6_tnl_xmit+0x608/0xc00 [ip6_tunnel]
ip6gre_tunnel_xmit+0x1c0/0x390 [ip6_gre]
dev_hard_start_xmit+0x63/0x1c0
__dev_queue_xmit+0x6d0/0x7f0
ip6_finish_output2+0x214/0x5d0
ip6_finish_output+0x1fc/0x3f0
ip6_xmit+0x2ca/0x6f0
ip6_finish_output+0x1fc/0x3f0
ip6_xmit+0x2ca/0x6f0
inet6_csk_xmit+0xeb/0x150
__tcp_transmit_skb+0x555/0xa80
tcp_write_xmit+0x32a/0xe90
tcp_sendmsg_locked+0x437/0x1110
tcp_sendmsg+0x2f/0x50
...
skb linear: 00000000: e4 3d 1a 7d ec 30 e4 3d 1a 7e 5d 90 86 dd 60 0e
skb linear: 00000010: 00 0a 1b 34 3c 40 20 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
skb linear: 00000020: 00 00 00 00 00 12 20 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
skb linear: 00000030: 00 00 00 00 00 11 2f 00 04 01 04 01 01 00 00 00
skb linear: 00000040: 86 dd 60 0e 00 0a 1b 00 06 40 20 23 00 00 00 00
skb linear: 00000050: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 12 20 23 00 00 00 00
skb linear: 00000060: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 bf 96 14 51 13 f9
skb linear: 00000070: ae 27 a0 a8 2b e3 80 18 00 40 5b 6f 00 00 01 01
skb linear: 00000080: 08 0a 42 d4 50 d5 4b 70 f8 1a
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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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