In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: openvswitch: fix middle attribute validation in push_nsh() action
The push_nsh() action structure looks like this:
OVS_ACTION_ATTR_PUSH_NSH(OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH(OVS_NSH_KEY_ATTR_BASE,...))
The outermost OVS_ACTION_ATTR_PUSH_NSH attribute is OK'ed by the
nla_for_each_nested() inside __ovs_nla_copy_actions(). The innermost
OVS_NSH_KEY_ATTR_BASE/MD1/MD2 are OK'ed by the nla_for_each_nested()
inside nsh_key_put_from_nlattr(). But nothing checks if the attribute
in the middle is OK. We don't even check that this attribute is the
OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH. We just do a double unwrap with a pair of nla_data()
calls - first time directly while calling validate_push_nsh() and the
second time as part of the nla_for_each_nested() macro, which isn't
safe, potentially causing invalid memory access if the size of this
attribute is incorrect. The failure may not be noticed during
validation due to larger netlink buffer, but cause trouble later during
action execution where the buffer is allocated exactly to the size:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in nsh_hdr_from_nlattr+0x1dd/0x6a0 [openvswitch]
Read of size 184 at addr ffff88816459a634 by task a.out/22624
CPU: 8 UID: 0 PID: 22624 6.18.0-rc7+ #115 PREEMPT(voluntary)
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x51/0x70
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x2c/0x390
kasan_report+0xdd/0x110
kasan_check_range+0x35/0x1b0
__asan_memcpy+0x20/0x60
nsh_hdr_from_nlattr+0x1dd/0x6a0 [openvswitch]
push_nsh+0x82/0x120 [openvswitch]
do_execute_actions+0x1405/0x2840 [openvswitch]
ovs_execute_actions+0xd5/0x3b0 [openvswitch]
ovs_packet_cmd_execute+0x949/0xdb0 [openvswitch]
genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x1d6/0x2b0
genl_family_rcv_msg+0x336/0x580
genl_rcv_msg+0x9f/0x130
netlink_rcv_skb+0x11f/0x370
genl_rcv+0x24/0x40
netlink_unicast+0x73e/0xaa0
netlink_sendmsg+0x744/0xbf0
__sys_sendto+0x3d6/0x450
do_syscall_64+0x79/0x2c0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
Let's add some checks that the attribute is properly sized and it's
the only one attribute inside the action. Technically, there is no
real reason for OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH to be there, as we know that we're
pushing an NSH header already, it just creates extra nesting, but
that's how uAPI works today. So, keeping as it is.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 2026-10-27). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 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 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