In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions
Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684,
but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some
combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that
would be present twice, but with different attributes.
The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output
side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a
small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks
this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules:
Which options can be used together?
X: mutually exclusive
O: often used together
C: can be used together in some cases
P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations)
| Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| MPC |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| MPJ | X |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| DSS | X | X |------|------|------|------|------|------|
| ADD | X | X | P |------|------|------|------|------|
| RM | C | C | C | P |------|------|------|------|
| PRIO | X | C | C | C | C |------|------|------|
| FAIL | X | X | C | X | X | X |------|------|
| FC | X | X | P | X | X | X | X |------|
| RST | X | X | X | X | X | X | O | O |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
The only difference is with the 'P': another stack could send and
ADD_ADDR with other suboptions (DSS, RM_ADDR), and this should be
allowed.
A few points of attention:
- In theory, an MP_CAPABLE could be used with a RM_ADDR, but there is
no reason to add it with a SYN. Note that even with a 4th ACK, it
doesn't seem to be useful, except when IDs are known in advance via
another channel. Better not to break that.
- Now, combining both an MP_CAPABLE and an MP_JOIN will no longer
result to a reject of the two options, but only the second suboption
is ignored. That seems OK to do that for this unexpected error. At
least now all inconsistent combinations are handled the same way.
This could change later in next. This also means the explicit checks
for having both MPC + MPJ in subflow.c will now be unreachable.
That's fine, they will be removed in a follow-up patch.
- In case of conflicting combinations, the extra suboption(s) is/are
ignored: having such combinations either means the remote peer is
buggy, or is evil. The simplest action is then taken in this case:
stop processing the current suboption.
- In mp_opt->suboptions, there is also a bit reserved to the checksum,
which can be used in an MP_CAPABLE and a DSS. Each time a DSS option
can be used in parallel with another option, the checksum can be set,
so the verification is combined into a new OPTIONS_MPTCP_DSS macro.
- An MP_CAPABLE ACK can carry a Data-Level Length, and an optional
Checksum: they are the same as the ones found in a DSS, because a DSS
cannot be used in parallel to an MP_CAPABLE. Similarly, even if there
is room, a DSS cannot be used with an MP_JOIN.
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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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