📌 이 취약점에 대해 확인된 사실
전부 발행처가 발표한 값입니다. 우리가 계산하거나 판단한 숫자는 하나도 없습니다.
악용 여부
악용 확인
심각도 (발행처 발표값)
높음7.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
악용 확률 (EPSS)
0.7%
📄 원문 그대로
아래 문장은 전부 발행처가 쓴 것입니다. 번역하지 않습니다 — 보안 문서의 오역은 조치를 바꿉니다.
취약점 설명 (NVD)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: account for fraggap on the paged allocation path In __ip6_append_data(), when the paged-allocation branch is taken (MSG_MORE / NETIF_F_SG / large fraglen), alloclen and pagedlen are computed as alloclen = fragheaderlen + transhdrlen; pagedlen = datalen - transhdrlen; datalen already includes fraggap (datalen = length + fraggap). When fraggap is non-zero, this is not the first skb and transhdrlen is zero. The fraggap bytes carried over from the previous skb are copied just past the fragment headers in the new skb's linear area. The linear area is therefore undersized by fraggap bytes while pagedlen is overstated by the same amount, and the copy writes past skb->end into the trailing skb_shared_info. An unprivileged user can trigger this via a UDPv6 socket using MSG_MORE together with MSG_SPLICE_PAGES. The bad accounting was introduced by commit 773ba4fe9104 ("ipv6: avoid partial copy for zc"). Before commit ce650a166335 ("udp6: Fix __ip6_append_data()'s handling of MSG_SPLICE_PAGES"), the negative copy value caused -EINVAL to be returned. That later commit allowed MSG_SPLICE_PAGES to proceed in this case, making the corruption triggerable. The non-paged branch sets alloclen to fraglen, which already accounts for fraggap because datalen does. Bring the paged branch in line by adding fraggap to alloclen and subtracting it from pagedlen. After this adjustment, copy no longer collapses to -fraggap on the paged path, so remove the stale comment describing that old arithmetic. Since a negative copy is no longer expected for a valid MSG_SPLICE_PAGES case, remove the MSG_SPLICE_PAGES exception from the negative copy check.
CISA 원문
Linux Kernel contains an unspecified vulnerability that can allow for privilege escalation via IPv6 networking subsystem. This vulnerability can impact multiple products, including but not limited to Suse, Red Hat, and other products using Linux. — CISA KEV · shortDescription 원문
Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.— CISA KEV · requiredAction 원문
악용 확률 변화
우리가 매일 저장한 EPSS 스냅샷입니다. 원본은 전날 값만 주므로, 이 표는 수집을 시작한 이후만 보여줍니다.
| 기준일 | 확률 | 백분위 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-02 | 0.71% | 53.5% |
| 2026-11-01 | 0.71% | 53.5% |
| 2026-10-31 | 0.71% | 53.5% |
| 2026-10-30 | 0.71% | 53.5% |
| 2026-10-29 | 0.71% | 53.4% |
| 2026-10-28 | 0.71% | 53.4% |
| 2026-10-27 | 0.71% | 53.3% |
| 2026-10-26 | 0.71% | 53.2% |
| 2026-10-25 | 0.71% | 53.2% |
| 2026-10-24 | 0.71% | 53.0% |
| 2026-10-23 | 0.71% | 53.0% |
| 2026-10-22 | 0.71% | 53.0% |
| 2026-10-21 | 0.71% | 52.9% |
| 2026-10-20 | 0.71% | 52.7% |
🧩 같은 약점 유형 — CWE-787
같은 분류의 다른 취약점입니다. 같은 실수가 제품을 가리지 않고 반복됩니다.