In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sctp: validate stream count in sctp_process_strreset_inreq()
When processing a RESET_IN_REQUEST from a peer,
sctp_process_strreset_inreq() derives the stream count from the
parameter length but does not check whether the resulting
RESET_OUT_REQUEST would exceed SCTP_MAX_CHUNK_LEN.
The OUT request header (sctp_strreset_outreq, 16 bytes) is 8 bytes
larger than the IN request header (sctp_strreset_inreq, 8 bytes).
Generally, the IP payload is bounded to 65535 bytes, so the stream
list cannot be large enough to trigger the overflow. However, on
interfaces with MTU > 65535 (e.g., loopback with IPv6 jumbograms), a
stream list that fits within the incoming IN parameter can cause a
__u16 overflow in sctp_make_strreset_req() when computing the OUT
request size, leading to an undersized skb allocation and a kernel
BUG:
net/core/skbuff.c:207 skb_panic
net/core/skbuff.c:2625 skb_put
net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c:1535 sctp_addto_chunk
net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c:3695 sctp_make_strreset_req
net/sctp/stream.c:655 sctp_process_strreset_inreq
The local setsockopt path validates the generated reset request size.
However, for an incoming-only reset, it accounts for the smaller IN
request even though the peer must generate an OUT request with the same
stream list. Such a request cannot be completed successfully by the
peer.
Reject peer IN requests whose corresponding OUT request would exceed
SCTP_MAX_CHUNK_LEN. Also tighten the local check so it does not send an
IN request that would require an oversized OUT request from the peer.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 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 or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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