In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: espintcp: do not reuse an in-progress partial send
espintcp keeps a single in-flight transmit in ctx->partial. Before building a new sk_msg, espintcp_sendmsg() first tries to flush that state through espintcp_push_msgs().
For blocking callers, espintcp_push_msgs() may return success even when the previous partial send is still pending. espintcp_sendmsg() would then reinitialize emsg->skmsg and reuse ctx->partial while the old transfer still owns that state.
Do not rebuild the send message when ctx->partial is still in progress. If espintcp_push_msgs() returns with emsg->len still set, fail the new send instead of overwriting the live partial state.
This is a memory-safety fix: reusing the live partial-send state can leave a stale offset attached to a new sk_msg and lead to an out-of- bounds read in the send path.
tcp_sendmsg_locked() already handles waiting for send buffer memory, so the fix here is just to preserve espintcp's one-message-at-a-time transmit state.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.6, < 5.10.259 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.210 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.176 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.143 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.94 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.18.36 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.0.13 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc2 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc3 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc4 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc6 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc7 |
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →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.