VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2026Updated 21 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-45859: Linux kernel · netfilter: nfnetlink_queue: do shared-unconfirmed check before segmentation

Affects Linux kernelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in b740e7ddd7ca0dbfeafca3f5e52717206cf28524 : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS

0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers can reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-10-16.

Patch

Available – fixed in b740e7ddd7ca0dbfeafca3f5e52717206cf28524, aead84bdacd77e08357fd718e5dcaffaf387f3c3, 23901aa6b8a2f294c4b774436b4691f3ff863a8f +6

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: 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.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is 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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected >=6.6.48 <6.6.160 >=5.15.166 <5.16 >=6.1.107 <6.2 >=6.10.7 <6.11	Fixed in b740e7ddd7ca0dbfeafca3f5e52717206cf28524 aead84bdacd77e08357fd718e5dcaffaf387f3c3 23901aa6b8a2f294c4b774436b4691f3ff863a8f 207b3ebacb6113acaaec0d171d5307032c690004 79b713ef4261a8ead96af4703f89d0b5f25532e2 6.11 6.6.160 6.2 5.16
LinuxLinux	Affected =6.11	Fixed in–

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nfnetlink_queue: do shared-unconfirmed check before segmentation Ulrich reports a regression with nfqueue: If an application did not set the 'F_GSO' capability flag and a gso packet with an unconfirmed nf_conn entry is received all packets are now dropped instead of queued, because the check happens after skb_gso_segment(). In that case, we did have exclusive ownership of the skb and its associated conntrack entry. The elevated use count is due to skb_clone happening via skb_gso_segment(). Move the check so that its peformed vs. the aggregated packet. Then, annotate the individual segments except the first one so we can do a 2nd check at reinject time. For the normal case, where userspace does in-order reinjects, this avoids packet drops: first reinjected segment continues traversal and confirms entry, remaining segments observe the confirmed entry. While at it, simplify nf_ct_drop_unconfirmed(): We only care about unconfirmed entries with a refcnt > 1, there is no need to special-case dying entries. This only happens with UDP. With TCP, the only unconfirmed packet will be the TCP SYN, those aren't aggregated by GRO. Next patch adds a udpgro test case to cover this scenario.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats