📌 이 취약점에 대해 확인된 사실
전부 발행처가 발표한 값입니다. 우리가 계산하거나 판단한 숫자는 하나도 없습니다.
악용 여부
악용 확인
심각도 (발행처 발표값)
높음7.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
악용 확률 (EPSS)
2.9%
📄 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: tls: fix handling of zero-length records on the rx_list Each recvmsg() call must process either - only contiguous DATA records (any number of them) - one non-DATA record If the next record has different type than what has already been processed we break out of the main processing loop. If the record has already been decrypted (which may be the case for TLS 1.3 where we don't know type until decryption) we queue the pending record to the rx_list. Next recvmsg() will pick it up from there. Queuing the skb to rx_list after zero-copy decrypt is not possible, since in that case we decrypted directly to the user space buffer, and we don't have an skb to queue (darg.skb points to the ciphertext skb for access to metadata like length). Only data records are allowed zero-copy, and we break the processing loop after each non-data record. So we should never zero-copy and then find out that the record type has changed. The corner case we missed is when the initial record comes from rx_list, and it's zero length.
CISA 원문
Linux Kernel contains an improper check for unusual or exceptional conditions vulnerability in the TLS receive path which allows a zero-length record retrieved from the rx_list to bypass the intended recvmsg() record-type handling, potentially causing subsequent TLS records to be processed using incorrect zero-copy and queuing assumptions. The impacted product(s) could be end-of-life (EoL) and/or end-of-service (EoS). Users are advised to discontinue use and/or transition to a supported version.— 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 | 2.88% | 86.4% |
| 2026-10-02 | 2.88% | 86.4% |
| 2026-10-01 | 2.88% | 86.4% |
| 2026-09-29 | 2.88% | 86.3% |
| 2026-09-27 | 2.88% | 86.3% |
| 2026-09-26 | 2.88% | 86.3% |
| 2026-09-25 | 2.88% | 86.3% |
| 2026-09-24 | 2.88% | 86.3% |
| 2026-09-23 | 2.03% | 80.2% |
| 2026-09-22 | 2.03% | 80.2% |
| 2026-09-21 | 1.20% | 66.4% |
| 2026-09-20 | 1.20% | 66.8% |
| 2026-09-19 | 1.20% | 66.8% |
| 2026-09-18 | 0.51% | 42.1% |
🧩 같은 약점 유형 — CWE-754
같은 분류의 다른 취약점입니다. 같은 실수가 제품을 가리지 않고 반복됩니다.