In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mac80211: Discard Beacon frames to non-broadcast address
Beacon frames are required to be sent to the broadcast address, see IEEE
Std 802.11-2020, 11.1.3.1 ("The Address 1 field of the Beacon .. frame
shall be set to the broadcast address"). A unicast Beacon frame might be
used as a targeted attack to get one of the associated STAs to do
something (e.g., using CSA to move it to another channel). As such, it
is better have strict filtering for this on the received side and
discard all Beacon frames that are sent to an unexpected address.
This is even more important for cases where beacon protection is used.
The current implementation in mac80211 is correctly discarding unicast
Beacon frames if the Protected Frame bit in the Frame Control field is
set to 0. However, if that bit is set to 1, the logic used for checking
for configured BIGTK(s) does not actually work. If the driver does not
have logic for dropping unicast Beacon frames with Protected Frame bit
1, these frames would be accepted in mac80211 processing as valid Beacon
frames even though they are not protected. This would allow beacon
protection to be bypassed. While the logic for checking beacon
protection could be extended to cover this corner case, a more generic
check for discard all Beacon frames based on A1=unicast address covers
this without needing additional changes.
Address all these issues by dropping received Beacon frames if they are
sent to a non-broadcast address.
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
- 0.2% 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 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