Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-37959
A fix is available.
Upgrade to 6.1.139 / 6.6.91 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click
Patch available
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: bpf: Scrub packet on bpf_redirect_peer When bpf_redirect_peer is used to redirect packets to a device in another network namespace, the skb isn't scrubbed. That can lead skb information from one namespace to be "misused" in another namespace. As one example, this is causing Cilium to drop traffic when using bpf_redirect_peer to redirect packets that just went through IPsec decryption to a container namespace. The following pwru trace shows (1) the packet path from the host's XFRM layer to the container's XFRM layer where it's dropped and (2) the number of active skb extensions at each function. NETNS MARK IFACE TUPLE FUNC 4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 xfrm_rcv_cb .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 xfrm4_rcv_cb .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026533547 d00 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 gro_cells_receive .active_extensions = (__u8)2, [...] 4026533547 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 skb_do_redirect .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 ip_rcv .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 ip_rcv_core .active_extensions = (__u8)2, [...] 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 udp_queue_rcv_one_skb .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 __xfrm_policy_check .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 __xfrm_decode_session .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 security_xfrm_decode_session .active_extensions = (__u8)2, 4026534999 0 eth0 10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53 kfree_skb_reason(SKB_DROP_REASON_XFRM_POLICY) .active_extensions = (__u8)2, In this case, there are no XFRM policies in the container's network namespace so the drop is unexpected. When we decrypt the IPsec packet, the XFRM state used for decryption is set in the skb extensions. This information is preserved across the netns switch. When we reach the XFRM policy check in the container's netns, __xfrm_policy_check drops the packet with LINUX_MIB_XFRMINNOPOLS because a (container-side) XFRM policy can't be found that matches the (host-side) XFRM state used for decryption. This patch fixes this by scrubbing the packet when using bpf_redirect_peer, as is done on typical netns switches via veth devices except skb->mark and skb->tstamp are not zeroed.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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
Linux KernelOperating system
Affected:
>= 5.10, < 6.1.139>= 6.2, < 6.6.91>= 6.7, < 6.12.29>= 6.13, < 6.14.7= 6.15
Debian LinuxOperating system
Affected:
= 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 · scoped
Upgrade available
Upgrade to 6.1.139 / 6.6.91 / 6.12.29 or later
Fixed in
6.1.1396.6.916.12.29
Vendor patch
git.kernel.org →
Recommended fix
High confidence
Upgrade to kernel 6.1.139+, 6.6.91+, 6.12.29+, or 6.14.7+ depending on your current branch; Debian 11 users should apply vendor kernel updates
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version branch your current kernel belongs to (e.g., 5.10.x-6.1.x, 6.2.x-6.6.x, 6.7.x-6.12.x, or 6.13.x-6.14.x)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a version that includes the fix: for 6.1.x branch upgrade to >= 6.1.139, for 6.2-6.6.x branch upgrade to >= 6.6.91, for 6.7-6.12.x branch upgrade to >= 6.12.29, or for 6.13-6.14.x branch upgrade to >= 6.14.7
- For Debian 11 (Bullseye) users, apply the Debian kernel update provided by the vendor to address this CVE
- Reboot the system after kernel upgrade to load the fixed kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming bpf_redirect_peer now scrubs packets properly
Caveat Kernel upgrades may require reboots and could introduce compatibility changes with third-party kernel modules; ensure dependent modules are compatible with the new kernel version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,600.
Get the upgrade done
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner
Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-37959 — 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-2025-37959 in production — separate from our analysis above.
Know something about CVE-2025-37959?
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.
What this is
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.
What belongs here
- 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