In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: account for fraggap on the paged allocation path
In __ip6_append_data(), when the paged-allocation branch is taken
(MSG_MORE / NETIF_F_SG / large fraglen), alloclen and pagedlen are
computed as
alloclen = fragheaderlen + transhdrlen;
pagedlen = datalen - transhdrlen;
datalen already includes fraggap (datalen = length + fraggap). When
fraggap is non-zero, this is not the first skb and transhdrlen is zero.
The fraggap bytes carried over from the previous skb are copied just past
the fragment headers in the new skb's linear area. The linear area is
therefore undersized by fraggap bytes while pagedlen is overstated by the
same amount, and the copy writes past skb->end into the trailing
skb_shared_info.
An unprivileged user can trigger this via a UDPv6 socket using
MSG_MORE together with MSG_SPLICE_PAGES.
The bad accounting was introduced by commit 773ba4fe9104 ("ipv6:
avoid partial copy for zc"). Before commit ce650a166335 ("udp6: Fix
__ip6_append_data()'s handling of MSG_SPLICE_PAGES"), the negative
copy value caused -EINVAL to be returned. That later commit allowed
MSG_SPLICE_PAGES to proceed in this case, making the corruption
triggerable.
The non-paged branch sets alloclen to fraglen, which already accounts
for fraggap because datalen does. Bring the paged branch in line by
adding fraggap to alloclen and subtracting it from pagedlen.
After this adjustment, copy no longer collapses to -fraggap on the
paged path, so remove the stale comment describing that old arithmetic.
Since a negative copy is no longer expected for a valid MSG_SPLICE_PAGES
case, remove the MSG_SPLICE_PAGES exception from the negative copy check.
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
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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/14200d435af9a9eeb444f529fc2f689a236b7962 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/65fb14cbebb0cd0eff903a22d33537ddc8b95769 · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/46f201f8b4c39633a1fa3dc12459f506d470993d · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6374fb9edf72c67a118a2c214a0dddd04c921e0a · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e9eacf19281ea2498b36291b56c9606118c2d74e · https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/736b380e28d0480c7bc3e022f1950f31fe53a7c5 · 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 · https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53362