Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-43080 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 2th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27571
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: l2tp: Drop large packets with UDP encap syzbot reported a WARN on my patch series [1]. The actual issue is an overflow of 16-bit UDP length field, and it exists…
more
in the upstream code. My series added a debug WARN with an overflow check that exposed the issue, that's why syzbot tripped on my patches, rather than on upstream code. syzbot's repro: r0 = socket$pppl2tp(0x18, 0x1, 0x1) r1 = socket$inet6_udp(0xa, 0x2, 0x0) connect$inet6(r1, &(0x7f00000000c0)={0xa, 0x0, 0x0, @loopback, 0xfffffffc}, 0x1c) connect$pppl2tp(r0, &(0x7f0000000240)=@pppol2tpin6={0x18, 0x1, {0x0, r1, 0x4, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, {0xa, 0x4e22, 0xffff, @ipv4={'\x00', '\xff\xff', @empty}}}}, 0x32) writev(r0, &(0x7f0000000080)=[{&(0x7f0000000000)="ee", 0x34000}], 0x1) It basically sends an oversized (0x34000 bytes) PPPoL2TP packet with UDP encapsulation, and l2tp_xmit_core doesn't check for overflows when it assigns the UDP length field. The value gets trimmed to 16 bites. Add an overflow check that drops oversized packets and avoids sending packets with trimmed UDP length to the wire. syzbot's stack trace (with my patch applied): len >= 65536u WARNING: ./include/linux/udp.h:38 at udp_set_len_short include/linux/udp.h:38 [inline], CPU#1: syz.0.17/5957 WARNING: ./include/linux/udp.h:38 at l2tp_xmit_core net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c:1293 [inline], CPU#1: syz.0.17/5957 WARNING: ./include/linux/udp.h:38 at l2tp_xmit_skb+0x1204/0x18d0 net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c:1327, CPU#1: syz.0.17/5957 Modules linked in: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 5957 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:udp_set_len_short include/linux/udp.h:38 [inline] RIP: 0010:l2tp_xmit_core net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c:1293 [inline] RIP: 0010:l2tp_xmit_skb+0x1204/0x18d0 net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c:1327 Code: 0f 0b 90 e9 21 f9 ff ff e8 e9 05 ec f6 90 0f 0b 90 e9 8d f9 ff ff e8 db 05 ec f6 90 0f 0b 90 e9 cc f9 ff ff e8 cd 05 ec f6 90 <0f> 0b 90 e9 de fa ff ff 44 89 f1 80 e1 07 80 c1 03 38 c1 0f 8c 4f RSP: 0018:ffffc90003d67878 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: ffffffff8ad985e3 RBX: ffff8881a6400090 RCX: ffff8881697f0000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000034010 RDI: 000000000000ffff RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000004 R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: fffff520007acf00 R12: ffff8881baf20900 R13: 0000000000034010 R14: ffff8881a640008e R15: ffff8881760f7000 FS: 000055557e81f500(0000) GS:ffff8882a9467000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000200000033000 CR3: 00000001612f4000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <TASK> pppol2tp_sendmsg+0x40a/0x5f0 net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c:302 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:727 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:742 [inline] sock_write_iter+0x503/0x550 net/socket.c:1195 do_iter_readv_writev+0x619/0x8c0 fs/read_write.c:-1 vfs_writev+0x33c/0x990 fs/read_write.c:1059 do_writev+0x154/0x2e0 fs/read_write.c:1105 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x14d/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f636479c629 Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 e8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007ffffd4241c8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000014 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f6364a15fa0 RCX: 00007f636479c629 RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000200000000080 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 00007f6364832b39 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00007f6364a15fac R14: 00007f6364a15fa0 R15: 00007f6364a15fa0 </TASK> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260226201600.222044-1-alice.kernel@fastmail.im/
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.
DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.
System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.
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 coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.
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 excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Capacity management includes monitoring and limits that mitigate resource exhaustion from runaway recursion.