CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: pm: in-kernel: always mark signal+subflow endp as used Syzkaller managed to find a combination of actions that was generating this warning: msk->pm.local_addr_used == 0 WARNING: net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1071 at __mark_subflow_endp_available net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1071 [inline], CPU#1: syz.2.17/961 WARNING: net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1071 at mptcp_nl_remove_subflow_and_signal_addr net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1103 [inline], CPU#1: syz.2.17/961 WARNING: net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1071 at mptcp_pm_nl_del_addr_doit+0x81d/0x8f0 net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1210, CPU#1: syz.2.17/961 Modules linked in: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 961 Comm: syz.2.17 Not tainted 6.19.0-08368-gfafda3b4b06b #22 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Ubuntu 25.10 PC v2 (i440FX + PIIX, + 10.1 machine, 1996), BIOS 1.17.0-debian-1.17.0-1build1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:__mark_subflow_endp_available net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1071 [inline] RIP: 0010:mptcp_nl_remove_subflow_and_signal_addr net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1103 [inline] RIP: 0010:mptcp_pm_nl_del_addr_doit+0x81d/0x8f0 net/mptcp/pm_kernel.c:1210 Code: 89 c5 e8 46 30 6f fe e9 21 fd ff ff 49 83 ed 80 e8 38 30 6f fe 4c 89 ef be 03 00 00 00 e8 db 49 df fe eb ac e8 24 30 6f fe 90 <0f> 0b 90 e9 1d ff ff ff e8 16 30 6f fe eb 05 e8 0f 30 6f fe e8 9a RSP: 0018:ffffc90001663880 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: ffffffff82de1a6c RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffff88800722b500 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: ffff8880158b22d0 R08: 0000000000010425 R09: ffffffffffffffff R10: ffffffff82de18ba R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88800641a640 R13: ffff8880158b1880 R14: ffff88801ec3c900 R15: ffff88800641a650 FS: 00005555722c3500(0000) GS:ffff8880f909d000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f66346e0f60 CR3: 000000001607c000 CR4: 0000000000350ef0 Call Trace: genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x117/0x180 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1115 genl_family_rcv_msg net/netlink/genetlink.c:1195 [inline] genl_rcv_msg+0x3a8/0x3f0 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1210 netlink_rcv_skb+0x16d/0x240 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550 genl_rcv+0x28/0x40 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1219 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline] netlink_unicast+0x3e9/0x4c0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344 netlink_sendmsg+0x4aa/0x5b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:727 [inline] __sock_sendmsg+0xc9/0xf0 net/socket.c:742 ____sys_sendmsg+0x272/0x3b0 net/socket.c:2592 ___sys_sendmsg+0x2de/0x320 net/socket.c:2646 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2678 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2683 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2681 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x110/0x1a0 net/socket.c:2681 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x143/0x440 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f66346f826d Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 e8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007ffc83d8bdc8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f6634985fa0 RCX: 00007f66346f826d RDX: 00000000040000b0 RSI: 0000200000000740 RDI: 0000000000000007 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007f6634985fa8 R13: 00007f6634985fac R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000001770 The actions that caused that seem to be: - Set the MPTCP subflows limit to 0 - Create an MPTCP endpoint with both the 'signal' and 'subflow' flags - Create a new MPTCP connection from a different address: an ADD_ADDR linked to the MPTCP endpoint will be sent ('signal' flag), but no subflows is initiated ('subflow' flag) - Remove the MPTCP endpoint ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	5.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H More informations Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.	nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org