CVE-2025-39948

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-10-04. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2025-32395 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-7v58-mp27-j7rx (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames

The ice_put_rx_mbuf() function handles calling ice_put_rx_buf() for each buffer in the current frame. This function was introduced as part of handling multi-buffer XDP support in the ice driver.

It works by iterating over the buffers from first_desc up to 1 plus the total number of fragments in the frame, cached from before the XDP program was executed.

If the hardware posts a descriptor with a size of 0, the logic used in ice_put_rx_mbuf() breaks. Such descriptors get skipped and don't get added as fragments in ice_add_xdp_frag. Since the buffer isn't counted as a fragment, we do not iterate over it in ice_put_rx_mbuf(), and thus we don't call ice_put_rx_buf().

Because we don't call ice_put_rx_buf(), we don't attempt to re-use the page or free it. This leaves a stale page in the ring, as we don't increment next_to_alloc.

The ice_reuse_rx_page() assumes that the next_to_alloc has been incremented properly, and that it always points to a buffer with a NULL page. Since this function doesn't check, it will happily recycle a page over the top of the next_to_alloc buffer, losing track of the old page.

Note that this leak only occurs for multi-buffer frames. The ice_put_rx_mbuf() function always handles at least one buffer, so a single-buffer frame will always get handled correctly. It is not clear precisely why the hardware hands us descriptors with a size of 0 sometimes, but it happens somewhat regularly with "jumbo frames" used by 9K MTU.

To fix ice_put_rx_mbuf(), we need to make sure to call ice_put_rx_buf() on all buffers between first_desc and next_to_clean. Borrow the logic of a similar function in i40e used for this same purpose. Use the same logic also in ice_get_pgcnts().

Instead of iterating over just the number of fragments, use a loop which iterates until the current index reaches to the next_to_clean element just past the current frame. Unlike i40e, the ice_put_rx_mbuf() function does call ice_put_rx_buf() on the last buffer of the frame indicating the end of packet.

For non-linear (multi-buffer) frames, we need to take care when adjusting the pagecnt_bias. An XDP program might release fragments from the tail of the frame, in which case that fragment page is already released. Only update the pagecnt_bias for the first descriptor and fragments still remaining post-XDP program. Take care to only access the shared info for fragmented buffers, as this avoids a significant cache miss.

The xdp_xmit value only needs to be updated if an XDP program is run, and only once per packet. Drop the xdp_xmit pointer argument from ice_put_rx_mbuf(). Instead, set xdp_xmit in the ice_clean_rx_irq() function directly. This avoids needing to pass the argument and avoids an extra bit-wise OR for each buffer in the frame.

Move the increment of the ntc local variable to ensure its updated *before* all calls to ice_get_pgcnts() or ice_put_rx_mbuf(), as the loop logic requires the index of the element just after the current frame.

Now that we use an index pointer in the ring to identify the packet, we no longer need to track or cache the number of fragments in the rx_ring.

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
34th
KEV
Not listed

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. 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

Published

October 4, 2025

Last Modified

October 21, 2026

Advisory Details (3)

Auto-updated Aug 5, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/84bf1ac85af84d354c7a2fdbdc0d4efc8aaec34b
Web page

ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fcb5718ebfe7fd64144e3399280440cce361a3ae
Web page

ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/80555adb5c892f0e21d243ae96ed997ee520aea9

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2025-39948(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(12)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntulinux-virtual-hwe-22.04-edge (6.8.0-106.106~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-lowlatency-64k-6.8 (6.8.0-1049.52.1) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-gcp-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-1052.55+fips1) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-realtime-6.8.1 (6.8.1-1045.46) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-xilinx-zynqmp (6.8.0.1029.30) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-1052.58+fips1) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-aws-edge (6.8.0-1050.53~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1051.57) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-edge (6.8.0-1051.57~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-21ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-raspi-realtime-6.8 (6.8.0-2040.41) @ noble2026-10-21ubuntu
linuxKernel @ 6.12.49 (fixes >=0)—osv
linuxKernel @ 6.6.160 (fixes >=0)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.38-1 ... 6.12.57-1~bpo12+1 (6 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.57-1: fixed in 6.12.57-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.16~rc7-1~exp1 (67 versions)
  • every version up to 6.16.9-1: fixed in 6.16.9-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

All Vendor Advisories

(10)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 47× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 98 of 197 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 2 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 99 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  6. 2026-10-29 07:55 UTCOSV refresh
  7. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  8. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  9. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:28 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-24 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 22nd percentile
  13. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  14. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  15. 2026-10-21 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  16. 2026-10-21 13:55 UTCVendor advisory
  17. 2026-10-21 13:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7v58-mp27-j7rx · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  18. 2026-10-21 13:03 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-21 13:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7v58-mp27-j7rx · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  20. 2026-10-21 12:33 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-21 12:33 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-21 12:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7v58-mp27-j7rx · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  23. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  24. 2026-10-19 21:45 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-19 21:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7v58-mp27-j7rx · GitHub CVSS 5.5
Show 73 more
  1. 2026-10-19 21:25 UTCOSV refresh
  2. 2026-10-19 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  3. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  4. 2026-10-18 05:35 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  6. 2026-10-16 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  7. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  8. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  9. 2026-10-13 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 20th percentile
  10. 2026-10-12 17:06 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  12. 2026-10-11 20:39 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-11 18:50 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-11 15:27 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  16. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  17. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  18. 2026-10-08 17:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  19. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  20. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  21. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  22. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  23. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  24. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  25. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  26. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  27. 2026-09-27 02:12 UTCOSV refresh
  28. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  29. 2026-09-26 00:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  30. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  31. 2026-09-23 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  32. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  33. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  34. 2026-09-17 19:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  35. 2026-09-16 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  36. 2026-09-16 05:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  37. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  38. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  39. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  40. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  41. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  42. 2026-09-08 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  43. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  44. 2026-09-07 11:18 UTCOSV refresh
  45. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 21st percentile
  46. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  47. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  48. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  49. 2026-09-01 04:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  50. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  51. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  52. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  53. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  54. 2026-08-26 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  55. 2026-08-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  56. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  57. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  58. 2026-08-20 22:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  59. 2026-08-20 20:31 UTCOSV refresh
  60. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  61. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  62. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  63. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  64. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  65. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  66. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  67. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  68. 2026-08-09 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  69. 2026-08-08 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  70. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  71. 2026-08-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 19th percentile
  72. 2026-08-05 12:55 UTCEG score recompute
  73. 2026-08-05 12:55 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-39948?
CVE-2025-39948 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 4, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames The ice_put_rx_mbuf() function handles calling ice_put_rx_buf() for each buffer in the current frame. This function was introduced as part of handling multi-buffer XDP support in the ice…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-39948 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-39948 was published on October 4, 2025. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 21, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-39948 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-39948 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (34th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-39948?
CVE-2025-39948 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-39948?
A fix for CVE-2025-39948 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2025-39948 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2025-39948

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-39948?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.