CVE-2026-98372 — xfrm: iptfs: fix stack OOB read in iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: iptfs: fix stack OOB read in iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk() iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk() advances to the fragment containing @offset with an unbounded loop: while (offset >= walk->past + walk->frags[walk->fragi].len) walk->past += walk->frags[walk->fragi++].len; walk->fragi is advanced and walk->frags[walk->fragi] is dereferenced without ever checking fragi against walk->nr_frags. When the requested offset is at or beyond the total length spanned by the walk's fragments, fragi runs past nr_frags and off the end of the fixed-size on-stack frags[MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1] array, reading out-of-bounds stack memory. The two callers behave differently: iptfs_skb_add_frags() already guards against this with if (!walk->nr_frags || offset >= walk->total + walk->initial_offset) return len; but iptfs_skb_can_add_frags() has no such guard and calls iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk() unconditionally, so it performs the out-of-range walk. Its own "fragi < walk->nr_frags" bound check runs only afterwards, too late to prevent the read. This is reachable from the receive path: a crafted IP-TFS (AGGFRAG) payload delivered to an IPTFS SA drives iptfs_reassem_cont() -> iptfs_skb_can_add_frags() with an offset past the fragment total, e.g.: BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk+0x235/0x250 Read of size 4 at addr ffff888008ad7210 by task repro/345 iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk+0x235/0x250 net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c:392 iptfs_skb_can_add_frags+0x155/0x310 net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c:420 iptfs_reassem_cont+0xcf8/0x1140 net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c:902 iptfs_input_ordered+0x552/0x670 net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c:1280 iptfs_input+0x3d6/0xde0 net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c:1741 xfrm_input+0x282f/0x6140 net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c:700 xfrm4_esp_rcv+0x93/0x120 net/ipv4/xfrm4_protocol.c:104 ip_rcv+0x278/0x2d0 net/ipv4/ip_input.c:612 Give iptfs_skb_can_add_frags() the same up-front guard that iptfs_skb_add_frags() already has, so the walk is never entered with an out-of-range offset. When it triggers, the caller falls back to the existing linearize-and-copy path, which is safe.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | ≥ 5f2b6a9095743a6bf1f34c43c4fe78fa8bdf5ad7 and < 7e1c6884a0b494b7e3f204877f94c1e07a117bf7≥ 5f2b6a9095743a6bf1f34c43c4fe78fa8bdf5ad7 and < da56d0ee93d1bad779b0486f2fab92d1bc1f0cf3≥ 5f2b6a9095743a6bf1f34c43c4fe78fa8bdf5ad7 and < d042487dc118e494db2e2c1382310255c90ff544version 6.14 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.16%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 7h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 7h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98431 RDMA/uverbs: Fix mmap_lock/disassociation_lock circular dependency 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98430 RDMA/efa: Keep admin queues alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98429 RDMA/efa: Keep EQ resources alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 1d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No CVSS score published by NVD, the CNA, CISA or GitHub so far.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No CWE classification.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-98372 is "xfrm: iptfs: fix stack OOB read in iptfs_skb_reset_frag_walk()", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. EPSS 0.16% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.