Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS scores by FIRST (EPSS SIG), generated by Empirical Security. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-43186 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210); ranked in the top 50% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-27747
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: ioam: fix heap buffer overflow in __ioam6_fill_trace_data() On the receive path, __ioam6_fill_trace_data() uses trace->nodelen to decide how much data to write for each node. It trusts this field as-is…
more
from the incoming packet, with no consistency check against trace->type (the 24-bit field that tells which data items are present). A crafted packet can set nodelen=0 while setting type bits 0-21, causing the function to write ~100 bytes past the allocated region (into skb_shared_info), which corrupts adjacent heap memory and leads to a kernel panic. Add a shared helper ioam6_trace_compute_nodelen() in ioam6.c to derive the expected nodelen from the type field, and use it: - in ioam6_iptunnel.c (send path, existing validation) to replace the open-coded computation; - in exthdrs.c (receive path, ipv6_hop_ioam) to drop packets whose nodelen is inconsistent with the type field, before any data is written. Per RFC 9197, bits 12-21 are each short (4-octet) fields, so they are included in IOAM6_MASK_SHORT_FIELDS (changed from 0xff100000 to 0xff1ffc00).
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.