In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: skbuff: preserve shared-frag marker during coalescing
skb_try_coalesce() can attach paged frags from @from to @to. If @from
has SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG set, the resulting @to skb can contain the same
externally-owned or page-cache-backed frags, but the shared-frag marker
is currently lost.
That breaks the invariant relied on by later in-place writers. In
particular, ESP input checks skb_has_shared_frag() before deciding
whether an uncloned nonlinear skb can skip skb_cow_data(). If TCP
receive coalescing has moved shared frags into an unmarked skb, ESP can
see skb_has_shared_frag() as false and decrypt in place over page-cache
backed frags.
Propagate SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG when skb_try_coalesce() transfers paged
frags. The tailroom copy path does not need the marker because it copies
bytes into @to's linear data rather than transferring frag descriptors.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.0 is the CISA KEV floor for confirmed exploitation, not an impact rating: its impact severity (EG Severity) is CVSS 7.8 HIGH.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 16% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- CISA KEV and EG-KEV Tier 1 (exploited in the wild)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Attend at medium mission impactTrack at low, Attend at medium and Act at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days & forensic triage if the affected system is publicly exposed; 14 days 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, Attend at medium and Act at high mission impact.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low, sooner than that at medium and as soon as possible at high mission impact.
Exploitation active (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days & forensic triage if the affected system is publicly exposed; 14 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV yes (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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
CISA required action“Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.”
Quoted verbatim from CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. CISA directs it at US federal civilian executive branch agencies under Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 26-04, which replaced BOD 22-01 on 10 June 2026; it is not EchelonGraph's advice. CISA's notes: https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3599e6b3cc1ada96883d496a50a210d3afbb6987 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2f2b16022a2e10ca7bccfb98db5ed2ec0f72641c · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9d3e5fd19fe1063bf607219e8562fbd567b8e8d5 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/78bf6b6bb19541d19fbda6242e7cfe2c682763c0 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/760e1addc27ba1a7beb4a0a7e8b3e9ec49e7a34e · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3bd9e113d50034db99d7ef69fd8e5242d15e414a · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3884358a9286b17f389a72b1426fc4547c23c111 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f84eca5817390257cef78013d0112481c503b4a3 · https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-26-04-prioritizing-security-updates-based-risk · https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-26-04-implementation-guidance-prioritizing-security-updates-based-risk