CVE-2025-39768
Linux Kernel 6.16 – 6.16.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-39768 is a medium-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28944
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: HWS, fix complex rules rehash error flow Moving rules from matcher to matcher should not fail. However, if it does fail due to various reasons, the error flow should…
more
allow the kernel to continue functioning (albeit with broken steering rules) instead of going into series of soft lock-ups or some other problematic behaviour. Similar to the simple rules, complex rules rehash logic suffers from the same problems. This patch fixes the error flow for moving complex rules: - If new rule creation fails before it was even enqeued, do not poll for completion - If TIMEOUT happened while moving the rule, no point trying to poll for completions for other rules. Something is broken, completion won't come, just abort the rehash sequence. - If some other completion with error received, don't give up. Continue handling rest of the rules to minimize the damage. - Make sure that the first error code that was received will be actually returned to the caller instead of replacing it with the generic error code. All the aforementioned issues stem from the same bad error flow, so no point fixing them one by one and leaving partially broken code - fixing them in one patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.
Secure architecture principles discourage the use of assertions for runtime error handling that an attacker could exploit.
Secure coding standards explicitly ban the use of assert() or equivalent statements that can be triggered by external input.