In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: Duplicate SPI Handling
The issue originates when Strongswan initiates an XFRM_MSG_ALLOCSPI
Netlink message, which triggers the kernel function xfrm_alloc_spi().
This function is expected to ensure uniqueness of the Security Parameter
Index (SPI) for inbound Security Associations (SAs). However, it can
return success even when the requested SPI is already in use, leading
to duplicate SPIs assigned to multiple inbound SAs, differentiated
only by their destination addresses.
This behavior causes inconsistencies during SPI lookups for inbound packets.
Since the lookup may return an arbitrary SA among those with the same SPI,
packet processing can fail, resulting in packet drops.
According to RFC 4301 section 4.4.2 , for inbound processing a unicast SA
is uniquely identified by the SPI and optionally protocol.
Reproducing the Issue Reliably:
To consistently reproduce the problem, restrict the available SPI range in
charon.conf : spi_min = 0x10000000 spi_max = 0x10000002
This limits the system to only 2 usable SPI values.
Next, create more than 2 Child SA. each using unique pair of src/dst address.
As soon as the 3rd Child SA is initiated, it will be assigned a duplicate
SPI, since the SPI pool is already exhausted.
With a narrow SPI range, the issue is consistently reproducible.
With a broader/default range, it becomes rare and unpredictable.
Current implementation:
xfrm_spi_hash() lookup function computes hash using daddr, proto, and family.
So if two SAs have the same SPI but different destination addresses, then
they will:
a. Hash into different buckets
b. Be stored in different linked lists (byspi + h)
c. Not be seen in the same hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() iteration.
As a result, the lookup will result in NULL and kernel allows that Duplicate SPI
Proposed Change:
xfrm_state_lookup_spi_proto() does a truly global search - across all states,
regardless of hash bucket and matches SPI and proto.
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 2026-10-29). 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