CVE-2026-74598
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: ipv6: fix Route Information option length validation rt6_route_rcv() validates the Route Information option (RFC 4191) length against the prefix length, but both checks are off by one. rinfo->length is the ND option length in units of 8 octets and it *includes* the 8-byte option header, so an option carrying N bytes of prefix has length == 1 + N/8. RFC 4191 section 2.3 requires length 3 when Prefix Length is greater than 64, and 2 or 3 when it is greater than 0. The code accepts length >= 2 and length >= 1 respectively. ipv6_addr_prefix() then copies prefix_len/8 bytes out of rinfo->prefix, so a Router Advertisement with (prefix_len=128, length=2) or (prefix_len=64, length=1) makes the kernel read up to 8 bytes past the end of the option. Those bytes end up in the prefix of the route that gets installed, so they are visible to userspace: # RA with a Route Information option (prefix_len=128, length=2) # followed by a source link-layer address option, 01 01 de ad be ef ca fe $ ip -6 route show 2001:db8:dead:beef:101:dead:beef:cafe via fe80::1234 dev veth0 proto ra ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the next option, read out of bounds When the Route Information option is the last one in the packet, those eight bytes come from the skb tail room instead. Reject the option lengths RFC 4191 does not allow.
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.
CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $4,900. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-74598 — 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-2026-74598 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