In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bridge: guard local VLAN-0 FDB helpers against NULL vlan group
When CONFIG_BRIDGE_VLAN_FILTERING is not set, br_vlan_group() and
nbp_vlan_group() return NULL (br_private.h stub definitions). The
BR_BOOLOPT_FDB_LOCAL_VLAN_0 toggle code is compiled unconditionally and
reaches br_fdb_delete_locals_per_vlan_port() and
br_fdb_insert_locals_per_vlan_port(), where the NULL vlan group pointer
is dereferenced via list_for_each_entry(v, &vg->vlan_list, vlist).
The observed crash is in the delete path, triggered when creating a
bridge with IFLA_BR_MULTI_BOOLOPT containing BR_BOOLOPT_FDB_LOCAL_VLAN_0
via RTM_NEWLINK. The insert helper has the same bug pattern.
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000056: 0000 [#1] KASAN NOPTI
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x00000000000002b0-0x00000000000002b7]
RIP: 0010:br_fdb_delete_locals_per_vlan+0x2b9/0x310
Call Trace:
br_fdb_toggle_local_vlan_0+0x452/0x4c0
br_toggle_fdb_local_vlan_0+0x31/0x80 net/bridge/br.c:276
br_boolopt_toggle net/bridge/br.c:313
br_boolopt_multi_toggle net/bridge/br.c:364
br_changelink net/bridge/br_netlink.c:1542
br_dev_newlink net/bridge/br_netlink.c:1575
Add NULL checks for the vlan group pointer in both helpers, returning
early when there are no VLANs to iterate. This matches the existing
pattern used by other bridge FDB functions such as br_fdb_add() and
br_fdb_delete().
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
- 0.1% 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