EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
Zephyr's IPv6 forwarding path re-sent routed unicast packets without ever decrementing the IPv6 hop limit. Both routing branches of ipv6_route_packet() (subsys/net/ip) were affected: the explicit-route path (net_route_packet()) and the on-link cross-interface path (net_route_packet_if()). Each set the packet forwarding flag and called net_send_data() with the hop limit untouched and no expiry check.
Per RFC 8200 the hop-limit decrement is the mechanism that bounds packet lifetime and terminates routing loops; without it, a device acting as an IPv6 router relays looping packets indefinitely. An on-path attacker who can induce or exploit a transient L3 loop turns it into a permanent forwarding storm, causing CPU/bandwidth resource exhaustion (availability DoS) on the forwarder and adjacent links; path-discovery and loop diagnostics that rely on hop-limit expiry are also defeated.
Affected configurations. In every affected release the forwarding path is reached via CONFIG_NET_ROUTE (enabled by default when CONFIG_NET_IPV6_NBR_CACHE is set), together with CONFIG_NET_ROUTING for cross-interface routing. Note that CONFIG_NET_IPV6_FORWARDING and CONFIG_NET_IPV4_FORWARDING — which appear in the fix and in this advisory's evidence notes — were introduced after v4.4.0, when the routing options were split and renamed; they do not exist in any affected release. When auditing a v4.4.1-or-earlier configuration, look for CONFIG_NET_ROUTE and CONFIG_NET_ROUTING.
IPv4 is not affected in any release. The IPv4 forwarding path (net_route_ipv4_packet() in route_ipv4.c) was added after v4.4.0 and has never shipped in a release. Its TTL decrement and IPv4 header-checksum recomputation landed on main as part of the same fix, so the evidence notes below discuss it, but no released version is reachable by way of IPv4.
Affected releases are v1.8.0 through v4.4.1: v1.8.0 introduced net_route_packet() and v2.2.0 added net_route_packet_if(), and neither decremented the hop limit. v4.3.1 carries the explicit-route fix but not the on-link one, so it is affected as well. Fixed on main by 7d8f1afa7345 (explicit-route path) and 589eadc74efa (on-link path).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% 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 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.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 referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
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