CVE-2026-46306:详情

CVE-2026-46306

7.5
/
高危
0.07%V4
2026-06-08
17h16 +00:00
Network
2026-11-10
13h19 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: flow_dissector: do not dissect PPPoE PFC frames RFC 2516 Section 7 states that Protocol Field Compression (PFC) is NOT RECOMMENDED for PPPoE. In practice, pppd does not support negotiating PFC for PPPoE sessions, and the flow dissector driver has assumed an uncompressed frame until the blamed commit. During the review process of that commit [1], support for PFC is suggested. However, having a compressed (1-byte) protocol field means the subsequent PPP payload is shifted by one byte, causing 4-byte misalignment for the network header and an unaligned access exception on some architectures. The exception can be reproduced by sending a PPPoE PFC frame to an ethernet interface of a MIPS board, with RPS enabled, even if no PPPoE session is active on that interface: $ 0 : 00000000 80c40000 00000000 85144817 $ 4 : 00000008 00000100 80a75758 81dc9bb8 $ 8 : 00000010 8087ae2c 0000003d 00000000 $12 : 000000e0 00000039 00000000 00000000 $16 : 85043240 80a75758 81dc9bb8 00006488 $20 : 0000002f 00000007 85144810 80a70000 $24 : 81d1bda0 00000000 $28 : 81dc8000 81dc9aa8 00000000 805ead08 Hi : 00009d51 Lo : 2163358a epc : 805e91f0 __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50 ra : 805ead08 __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c Status: 11000403 KERNEL EXL IE Cause : 40800010 (ExcCode 04) BadVA : 85144817 PrId : 0001992f (MIPS 1004Kc) Call Trace: [<805e91f0>] __skb_flow_dissect+0x1b0/0x1b50 [<805ead08>] __skb_get_hash_net+0x74/0x12c [<805ef330>] get_rps_cpu+0x1b8/0x3fc [<805fca70>] netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x324/0x364 [<805fd120>] napi_complete_done+0x68/0x2a4 [<8058de5c>] mtk_napi_rx+0x228/0xfec [<805fd398>] __napi_poll+0x3c/0x1c4 [<805fd754>] napi_threaded_poll_loop+0x234/0x29c [<805fd848>] napi_threaded_poll+0x8c/0xb0 [<80053544>] kthread+0x104/0x12c [<80002bd8>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c Code: 02d51821 1060045b 00000000 <8c640000> 3084000f 2c820005 144001a2 00042080 8e220000 To reduce the attack surface and maintain performance, do not process PPPoE PFC frames. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220630231016.GA392@debian.home

CVE 信息

相关弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名称 来源
CWE Other 暂无信息。
CWE-198 Use of Incorrect Byte Ordering
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not account for byte ordering (e.g. big-endian and little-endian) when processing the input, causing an incorrect number or value to be used.

指标

指标 评分 严重程度 CVSS 向量 来源
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

EPSS

EPSS 是一种预测漏洞被利用可能性的评分模型。

EPSS 评分

EPSS 模型生成一个介于 0 到 1(即 0% 到 100%)之间的概率评分。评分越高,漏洞被利用的可能性越大。

EPSS 百分位

百分位用于根据 EPSS 评分对 CVE 进行排名。例如,EPSS 百分位为第 95 的 CVE,其被利用的可能性高于 95% 的其他 CVE。因此,百分位可用于比较不同 CVE 的 EPSS 评分。

相关产品

配置 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.0 至(不含) 6.1.175

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.2 至(不含) 6.6.140

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.7 至(不含) 6.12.88

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.13 至(不含) 6.18.30

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.19 至(不含) 7.0.7

参考资料