Not ratedCVE-2026-80901

    Linux Kernel: security vulnerability (CVE-2026-80901)

    Published Last modified Sources: HKCERT, Ubuntu, Debian LTS, BSI, CVE.org, EUVD, Msrc Update Guide

    Share

    What is affected, what to do

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel.

    Update Linux Kernel to version 6.1.183, Linux Kernel to version 6.6.151, Linux Kernel to version 6.12.103.

    Affected
    • Linux Kernel lt 2.6.28..6.1.183
    • Linux Kernel lt 6.2..6.6.151
    • Linux Kernel lt 6.7..6.12.103
    • Linux Kernel lt 6.13..6.18.44
    • Linux Kernel lt 6.19..7.1.8
    Fixed in
    • Linux Kernel 6.1.183
    • Linux Kernel 6.6.151
    • Linux Kernel 6.12.103
    • Linux Kernel 6.18.44
    • Linux Kernel 7.1.8
    • Linux Kernel 7.2

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    —

    XIEM Effective CVSS

    No value is available for this vulnerability.

    0.0

    CVSS v3

    Severity Not rated on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: HKCERT, Ubuntu, Debian LTS, BSI, CVE.org, EUVD, Msrc Update Guide

    0.2 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 5.3

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Not rated
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    24.10 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    CVSS v3

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    0.0
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    0.2 %
    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    5.3
    Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 6 November 2026

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel. Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware. Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP. Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP. IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING. Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static.

    Source: HKCERT (CC BY 3.0 HK) · HKCERT rating: medium, Ubuntu Security Notices, Debian LTS Advisories, BSI WID Portal, BSI CSAF, cvelistv5, NVD (NIST), CVE.org (MITRE), ENISA EUVD, Microsoft Security Update Guide

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    LinuxLinux
    • 6.19 – < 7.1.8
    • 6.2 – < 6.6.151
    • 2.6.28 – < 6.1.183
    • 6.7 – < 6.12.103
    • —
    • 6.13 – < 6.18.44
    • 7.1.8
    • 6.6.151
    • 6.1.183
    • 6.12.103
    • 7.2
    • 6.18.44
    Red HatOpenShift
    • Container Platform
    • —

    Vendors and products

    Affected operating systems

    Affected operating systems
    Linuxdebianlinuxbookworm
    Linuxubuntulinuxnoble
    Linuxubuntulinuxresolute
    Linuxdebianlinux-6.12bookworm
    Linuxubuntulinux-awsnoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-awsresolute
    Linuxubuntulinux-aws-6.8jammy
    Linuxubuntulinux-aws-7.0noble
    Linuxubuntulinux-aws-fipsnoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-azurenoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-azureresolute
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-6.8jammy
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-fdenoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-fderesolute
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-fde-6.8jammy
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-fde-7.0noble
    Linuxubuntulinux-azure-fipsnoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-gcpnoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-gcpresolute
    Linuxubuntulinux-gcp-6.8jammy
    Linuxubuntulinux-gcp-7.0noble
    Linuxubuntulinux-gcp-fipsnoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-gkenoble
    Linuxubuntulinux-gkeresolute

    References & sources

    Changes to this CVE

    Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

    1. Record modifiedCISA ADP

      CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: no

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      SSVC assessmentadded
      —
      {"id":"CVE-2026-80901","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-11-06T17:04:54.112379Z"}

      Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

    2. ReceivedLinux

      Description added or changed

      Show 8 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionadded
      —
      In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel. Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware. Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP. Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP. IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING. Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static.
      Affected versions (publisher)added
      —
      New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/80xxx/CVE-2026-80901.json">CVE-2026-80901</a>
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/00eb23829fd08df1b5e057cb6b625996a70e7e65
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5558a85add073215b298f3e044ff9a6d86d714ae
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9cbe2c0fdb71904ee929b1851cdc1c73341a03c0
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b3869d9b54e76dff64118dee4c8fd9302fcd5171
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d418d73acf8be62744dc47359dfdde8c2148845d
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e876b75b9020a97bbdc79721e7fc749024891c65

      Source identifier: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-80901
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-80901"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-80901.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-80901 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>