GHSA-PCMH-X4Q7-GXF9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-10 15:33 – Updated: 2026-08-19 18:32In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
firewire: net: Fix fragmented datagram reassembly
fwnet_frag_new() keeps a sorted list of received fragments for a partial datagram. When a new fragment is adjacent to an existing fragment, the code checks whether the new fragment also closes the gap to the next or previous list entry.
Those neighbor lookups currently assume that the current fragment always has a real next or previous fragment. At a list edge, the next or previous entry is the list head, not a struct fwnet_fragment_info.
The gap checks also compare against the old edge of the current fragment instead of the edge after adding the new fragment. As a result, a fragment that bridges two existing ranges may leave two adjacent ranges unmerged, so fwnet_pd_is_complete() can miss a complete datagram.
Check for the list head before looking up the neighboring fragment, and compare the neighbor against the new fragment's far edge when deciding whether to merge all three ranges.
This issue was found by a static analysis checker and confirmed by manual source review.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-68354"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-10T13:20:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nfirewire: net: Fix fragmented datagram reassembly\n\nfwnet_frag_new() keeps a sorted list of received fragments for a partial\ndatagram. When a new fragment is adjacent to an existing fragment, the\ncode checks whether the new fragment also closes the gap to the next or\nprevious list entry.\n\nThose neighbor lookups currently assume that the current fragment always\nhas a real next or previous fragment. At a list edge, the next or\nprevious entry is the list head, not a struct fwnet_fragment_info.\n\nThe gap checks also compare against the old edge of the current fragment\ninstead of the edge after adding the new fragment. As a result, a\nfragment that bridges two existing ranges may leave two adjacent ranges\nunmerged, so fwnet_pd_is_complete() can miss a complete datagram.\n\nCheck for the list head before looking up the neighboring fragment, and\ncompare the neighbor against the new fragment\u0027s far edge when deciding\nwhether to merge all three ranges.\n\nThis issue was found by a static analysis checker and confirmed by\nmanual source review.",
"id": "GHSA-pcmh-x4q7-gxf9",
"modified": "2026-08-19T18:32:16Z",
"published": "2026-08-10T15:33:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68354"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0177e578d7a885037b0fb82286c12e9d0360cc10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0a219b2a01b4fe93706717e3bcacf7f62967b26f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1aaf16031d65ccd4576451a79f7dabbec994c111"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22e05b8ddbcf7d22c7f1598786e86635547e554d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/268cea3800eda5fa3ee04a49ee2973b8766a8df3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2a5aa4e9b89227d1a1690fb8d5b81e5f3b261999"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b7d633c7c92321be98724b1d365e8ce507f2f349"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d52a13adbb8ccbab99cd3bad36804e87d8b5c052"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.