In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: route MIGRATE notifications to caller's netns
xfrm_send_migrate() in net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c and pfkey_send_migrate()
in net/key/af_key.c both hardcode &init_net for the multicast that
announces a successful XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE / SADB_X_MIGRATE.
XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE arrives on a per-netns NETLINK_XFRM socket, and the
rest of the xfrm/af_key netlink path was made netns-aware in 2008.
The other 14 multicast paths in xfrm_user.c route their event using
xs_net(x), xp_net(xp) or sock_net(skb->sk); only the migrate path
was missed.
Two consequences of the init_net hardcoding:
- The notification (selector, old/new endpoint addresses, and the
km_address) is delivered to listeners on init_net's
XFRMNLGRP_MIGRATE / pfkey BROADCAST_ALL groups rather than on
the issuing netns. An IKE daemon running in init_net therefore
receives migration notifications originating from any other
netns on the host.
- An IKE daemon running inside a non-init netns and subscribed
to its own XFRMNLGRP_MIGRATE / pfkey groups never receives the
notification of its own migration. IKEv2 MOBIKE / address-update
handling inside a netns is silently broken.
Thread struct net through km_migrate() and the xfrm_mgr.migrate
function pointer, drop the &init_net override in xfrm_send_migrate()
and pfkey_send_migrate(), and pass the caller's net (already in
scope in xfrm_migrate() via sock_net(skb->sk)) all the way down.
struct xfrm_mgr is in-tree only and not exported as a stable API,
so the function-pointer signature change is internal.
pfkey_broadcast() is already netns-aware via net_generic(net,
pfkey_net_id) since the pernet conversion. The five other
pfkey_broadcast() callers in af_key.c already pass xs_net(x),
sock_net(sk) or a per-netns net, so this only removes the
&init_net outlier.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.3 HIGHCVSS-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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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