In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: restrict socket creation to the initial network namespace
QRTR keeps its entire port and node state in module-global variables
that are not partitioned per network namespace: qrtr_local_nid is a
single global node id (always 1) and qrtr_ports is a single global
xarray. qrtr_port_lookup() and qrtr_local_enqueue() operate on that
global state with no network-namespace check, and qrtr_create() places
no restriction on the namespace a socket is created in.
As a result an unprivileged process that creates an AF_QIPCRTR socket
in a separate network namespace, e.g. via
unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWNET), can send QRTR datagrams -
including control-plane messages such as QRTR_TYPE_NEW_SERVER - to QRTR
sockets owned by another namespace, and vice versa. The receiving
socket sees such a message as coming from node id 1, indistinguishable
from a legitimate local client, breaking the isolation that network
namespaces are expected to provide.
QRTR is a transport to global hardware endpoints (the modem and other
remote processors) and has no per-namespace semantics; its in-kernel
name service already creates its socket in init_net only. Confine the
socket family to the initial network namespace, as other
non-namespace-aware socket families do (see llc_ui_create() and the
ieee802154 socket code).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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 (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)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 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