In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sctp: keep chunk->transport in step with the list it is queued on
__sctp_outq_flush_rtx() moves a gap-acked chunk onto another transport's
transmitted list without updating chunk->transport:
if (chunk->tsn_gap_acked) {
list_move_tail(&chunk->transmitted_list,
&transport->transmitted);
continue;
}
The chunk then sits on a live transport's list while chunk->transport still
names a different one. If that transport is removed - sctp_assoc_rm_peer()
from an ASCONF Delete-IP - sctp_transport_free() RCU-frees it and the chunk
is left with a dangling pointer. sctp_assoc_rm_peer() scrubs
peer->transmitted and asoc->outqueue.out_chunk_list, but the chunk is on
neither.
The pointer is not followed while tsn_gap_acked is set. A SACK that
reneges on the TSN clears the flag, and the next SACK reaches
tchunk->transport->flight_size -= sctp_data_size(tchunk);
inside the freed transport. KASAN reports a slab-use-after-free read in
sctp_check_transmitted(), freed from sctp_assoc_rm_peer(). Both the
removal and the SACKs come from the association peer.
Set chunk->transport at the move. The ordinary resend path needs nothing:
it reaches its list_move_tail() only after sctp_packet_append_chunk()
returned SCTP_XMIT_OK, and __sctp_packet_append_chunk() has rebound the
chunk by then.
Discovered by XBOW, triaged by Baul Lee
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-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 2026-11-01). 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: 3 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 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 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 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