IT

Tracker / CVE-2026-23397

CVE-2026-23397

High 7.1

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfnetlink_osf: validate individual option lengths in fingerprints nfnl_osf_add_callback() validates opt_num bounds and string NUL-termination but does not check individual option length fields. A zero-length option causes nf_osf_match_one() to enter the option matching loop even when foptsize sums to zero, which matches packets with no TCP options where ctx->optp is NULL: Oops: general protection fault KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] RIP: 0010:nf_osf_match_one (net/netfilter/nfnetlink_osf.c:98) Call Trace: nf_osf_match (net/netfilter/nfnetlink_osf.c:227) xt_osf_match_packet (net/netfilter/xt_osf.c:32) ipt_do_table (net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c:293) nf_hook_slow (net/netfilter/core.c:623) ip_local_deliver (net/ipv4/ip_input.c:262) ip_rcv (net/ipv4/ip_input.c:573) Additionally, an MSS option (kind=2) with length < 4 causes out-of-bounds reads when nf_osf_match_one() unconditionally accesses optp[2] and optp[3] for MSS value extraction. While RFC 9293 section 3.2 specifies that the MSS option is always exactly 4 bytes (Kind=2, Length=4), the check uses "< 4" rather than "!= 4" because lengths greater than 4 do not cause memory safety issues -- the buffer is guaranteed to be at least foptsize bytes by the ctx->optsize == foptsize check. Reject fingerprints where any option has zero length, or where an MSS option has length less than 4, at add time rather than trusting these values in the packet matching hot path.

Affected products and versions

linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel · 2.6.31.1 → 5.10.253
linux linux_kernel · 5.11 → 5.15.203
linux linux_kernel · 5.16 → 6.1.167
linux linux_kernel · 6.13 → 6.18.20
linux linux_kernel · 6.19 → 6.19.10
linux linux_kernel · 6.2 → 6.6.130
linux linux_kernel · 6.7 → 6.12.78

Analysis

This page is not indexable yet.Until it carries original analysis — what it actually exposes, how to check in two minutes whether a system was touched, what to do if it was — the page stays noindex. The database decides that, not the template.

References