In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Scrub packet on bpf_redirect_peer
When bpf_redirect_peer is used to redirect packets to a device in another network namespace, the skb isn't scrubbed. That can lead skb information from one namespace to be "misused" in another namespace.
As one example, this is causing Cilium to drop traffic when using bpf_redirect_peer to redirect packets that just went through IPsec decryption to a container namespace. The following pwru trace shows (1) the packet path from the host's XFRM layer to the container's XFRM layer where it's dropped and (2) the number of active skb extensions at each function.
NETNS MARK IFACE TUPLE FUNC
4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 xfrm_rcv_cb
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 xfrm4_rcv_cb
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 gro_cells_receive
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
[...]
4026533547 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 skb_do_redirect
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 ip_rcv
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 ip_rcv_core
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
[...]
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 udp_queue_rcv_one_skb
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 __xfrm_policy_check
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 __xfrm_decode_session
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 security_xfrm_decode_session
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 kfree_skb_reason(SKB_DROP_REASON_XFRM_POLICY)
.active_extensions = (__u8)2,
In this case, there are no XFRM policies in the container's network namespace so the drop is unexpected. When we decrypt the IPsec packet, the XFRM state used for decryption is set in the skb extensions. This information is preserved across the netns switch. When we reach the XFRM policy check in the container's netns, __xfrm_policy_check drops the packet with LINUX_MIB_XFRMINNOPOLS because a (container-side) XFRM policy can't be found that matches the (host-side) XFRM state used for decryption.
This patch fixes this by scrubbing the packet when using bpf_redirect_peer, as is done on typical netns switches via veth devices except skb->mark and skb->tstamp are not zeroed.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.10 | 6.1.139 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.91 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.29 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.14.7 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15-rc1 | 6.15-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15-rc2 | 6.15-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15-rc3 | 6.15-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15-rc4 | 6.15-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15-rc5 | 6.15-rc5.x |
| debian / debian_linux | 11.0 | 11.0.x |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.