CVE-2025-23145
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: fix NULL pointer in can_accept_new_subflow When testing valkey benchmark tool with MPTCP, the kernel panics in 'mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow' because subflow_req->msk is NULL. Call trace: mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminator 4)) (P) subflow_syn_recv_sock (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854) tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863) tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268) ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207) ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234) ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254) ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449) ... According to the debug log, the same req received two SYN-ACK in a very short time, very likely because the client retransmits the syn ack due to multiple reasons. Even if the packets are transmitted with a relevant time interval, they can be processed by the server on different CPUs concurrently). The 'subflow_req->msk' ownership is transferred to the subflow the first, and there will be a risk of a null pointer dereference here. This patch fixes this issue by moving the 'subflow_req->msk' under the `own_req == true` conditional. Note that the !msk check in subflow_hmac_valid() can be dropped, because the same check already exists under the own_req mpj branch where the code has been moved to.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisThe code follows a pointer that is null, crashing the process. An attacker who can reliably trigger it turns the crash into a denial of service. The fix is checking for null before use and handling the failure path gracefully.
General guidance for the null pointer dereference class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 5.9, < 5.10.237>= 5.11, < 5.15.181>= 5.16, < 6.1.135>= 6.2, < 6.6.88>= 6.7, < 6.12.24>= 6.13, < 6.13.12>= 6.14, < 6.14.3= 11.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.10.2375.15.1816.1.135
Linux kernel 5.10.237, 5.15.181, 6.1.135, or 6.6.88 (depending on your current branch) | Debian 11 to 12 if no kernel update available
- Identify current kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version range your current kernel falls into from: >= 5.9, < 5.10.237; >= 5.11, < 5.15.181; >= 5.16, < 6.1.135; >= 6.2, < 6.6.88
- Upgrade kernel to the fixed release for your branch: 5.10.237+, 5.15.181+, 6.1.135+, or 6.6.88+ respectively
- Apply the upgrade via distribution package manager (e.g., `apt-get update && apt-get upgrade` for Debian, or `yum update` for RHEL-based systems)
- Reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- Verify the fix by running `uname -r` and confirming the version is >= the applicable fixed version
- For Debian 11 specifically, check if the vendor has released a kernel security update; if not, consider upgrading to Debian 12 or using a distribution-provided backported kernel
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23145 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-23145 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data