Kestrel
대시보드로 돌아가기
CVE-2026-80587CRITICAL· 9.8MITRENVD대응게시일: 2026. 08. 26.수정일: 2026. 08. 27.CNA: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67Received

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions Some MPTCP suboptions

위협 신호 · CVSS · EPSS · KEV

시급 검토· 이론 심각도 Critical
CVSS
9.8critical

이론적 심각도 점수

EPSS
0.4%상위 68.0%

30일 내 악용 확률 예측

KEV
미등재

실측 악용 기록 없음

권장 대응 기한3일 이내CISA SSVC 기준

즉시(3일 이내) 패치 — 최우선 대응

자동화 가능완전 장악외부 노출· KEV 미등재 · 자동화 가능 · 완전 장악 · 외부 노출

CVSS 벡터 · 메트릭

악용 경로
공격 벡터네트워크
공격 복잡도낮음
필요 권한불필요
사용자 상호작용불필요
범위불변
영향
기밀성 영향높음
무결성 영향높음
가용성 영향높음
버전별 점수
CVSS 3.19.8CRITICAL· 악용성 3.9· 영향도 5.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

상세 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions

Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684,
but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some
combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that
would be present twice, but with different attributes.

The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output
side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a
small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks
this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules:

Which options can be used together?

X: mutually exclusive
O: often used together
C: can be used together in some cases
P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations)

Opt:MPCMPJDSSADDRMPRIOFAILFC
MPC------------------------------------------------
MPJX------------------------------------------
DSSXX------------------------------------
ADDXXP------------------------------
RMCCCP------------------------
PRIOXCCCC------------------
FAILXXCXXX------------
FCXXPXXXX------
RSTXXXXXXOO
------------------------------------------------------

The only difference is with the 'P': another stack could send and
ADD_ADDR with other suboptions (DSS, RM_ADDR), and this should be
allowed.

A few points of attention:

  • In theory, an MP_CAPABLE could be used with a RM_ADDR, but there is
    no reason to add it with a SYN. Note that even with a 4th ACK, it
    doesn't seem to be useful, except when IDs are known in advance via
    another channel. Better not to break that.

  • Now, combining both an MP_CAPABLE and an MP_JOIN will no longer
    result to a reject of the two options, but only the second suboption
    is ignored. That seems OK to do that for this unexpected error. At
    least now all inconsistent combinations are handled the same way.
    This could change later in next. This also means the explicit checks
    for having both MPC + MPJ in subflow.c will now be unreachable.
    That's fine, they will be removed in a follow-up patch.

  • In case of conflicting combinations, the extra suboption(s) is/are
    ignored: having such combinations either means the remote peer is
    buggy, or is evil. The simplest action is then taken in this case:
    stop processing the current suboption.

  • In mp_opt->suboptions, there is also a bit reserved to the checksum,
    which can be used in an MP_CAPABLE and a DSS. Each time a DSS option
    can be used in parallel with another option, the checksum can be set,
    so the verification is combined into a new OPTIONS_MPTCP_DSS macro.

  • An MP_CAPABLE ACK can carry a Data-Level Length, and an optional
    Checksum: they are the same as the ones found in a DSS, because a DSS
    cannot be used in parallel to an MP_CAPABLE. Similarly, even if there
    is room, a DSS cannot be used with an MP_JOIN.

AI 심층 분석

공격 시나리오 · 재현 가능한 PoC 페이로드 · 즉시 적용 가능한 차단 패치를 한 번에 받아 보세요. 보안 운영팀이 그대로 점검·티켓팅에 쓸 수 있는 형태로 정리해 드립니다.