Skip to content
Fencer Vulns
critical 9.8

CVE-2026-80587 in the critical feed json

mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions

published 2026-08-26 2 mo ago modified 2026-10-30 9 d ago also EUVD-2026-66502

cvss
9.8
version 3.1, CNA
cisa kev
Not listed
not in CISA's catalog
epss
0.5%
EPSS 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days, percentile 44%
public exploits
0
none known

Summary

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions

Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that would be present twice, but with different attributes.

The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules:

Which options can be used together?

X: mutually exclusive O: often used together C: can be used together in some cases P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations)

| Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPC |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPJ | X |------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | DSS | X | X |------|------|------|------|------|------| | ADD | X | X | P |------|------|------|------|------| | RM | C | C | C | P |------|------|------|------| | PRIO | X | C | C | C | C |------|------|------| | FAIL | X | X | C | X | X | X |------|------| | FC | X | X | P | X | X | X | X |------| | RST | X | X | X | X | X | X | O | O | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|

The only difference is with the 'P': another stack could send and ADD_ADDR with other suboptions (DSS, RM_ADDR), and this should be allowed.

A few points of attention:

- In theory, an MP_CAPABLE could be used with a RM_ADDR, but there is no reason to add it with a SYN. Note that even with a 4th ACK, it doesn't seem to be useful, except when IDs are known in advance via another channel. Better not to break that.

- Now, combining both an MP_CAPABLE and an MP_JOIN will no longer result to a reject of the two options, but only the second suboption is ignored. That seems OK to do that for this unexpected error. At least now all inconsistent combinations are handled the same way. This could change later in next. This also means the explicit checks for having both MPC + MPJ in subflow.c will now be unreachable. That's fine, they will be removed in a follow-up patch.

- In case of conflicting combinations, the extra suboption(s) is/are ignored: having such combinations either means the remote peer is buggy, or is evil. The simplest action is then taken in this case: stop processing the current suboption.

- In mp_opt->suboptions, there is also a bit reserved to the checksum, which can be used in an MP_CAPABLE and a DSS. Each time a DSS option can be used in parallel with another option, the checksum can be set, so the verification is combined into a new OPTIONS_MPTCP_DSS macro.

- An MP_CAPABLE ACK can carry a Data-Level Length, and an optional Checksum: they are the same as the ones found in a DSS, because a DSS cannot be used in parallel to an MP_CAPABLE. Similarly, even if there is room, a DSS cannot be used with an MP_JOIN.

Patch / fix

  • Linux Linux 5.15.218, 6.1.191, 6.6.153, 6.12.105, 6.18.46, 7.1.10, 7.2
  • linux Debian 13 6.12.105-1
  • linux Debian 14 7.1.10-1
  • linux-6.12 Debian 12 6.12.107-1~deb12u1

debian advisories DEBIAN-CVE-2026-80587

  • linux Ubuntu 22.04 LTS 5.15.0-202.212
  • linux Ubuntu 26.04 LTS 7.0.0-42.42
  • linux-aws Ubuntu 22.04 LTS 5.15.0-1119.126
  • linux-aws Ubuntu 26.04 LTS 7.0.0-1016.17
  • linux-gcp Ubuntu 22.04 LTS 5.15.0-1120.130
  • linux-gcp Ubuntu 26.04 LTS 7.0.0-1016.18
  • linux-gke Ubuntu 22.04 LTS 5.15.0-1115.121
  • linux-ibm Ubuntu 22.04 LTS 5.15.0-1113.117

ubuntu advisories UBUNTU-CVE-2026-80587

Ubuntu security data © Canonical Ltd., from https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-security-notices via OSV; changed: normalised to fixed package versions per release. CC BY-SA 4.0

  • kernel Azure Linux 3.0 6.6.157.1-1

azure linux advisories AZL-97817

Azure Linux vulnerability data, Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation, from https://github.com/microsoft/AzureLinuxVulnerabilityData via OSV, under the MIT licence; changed: normalised to fixed package versions per release. MIT

Vendor advisories

What the vendors themselves say about their products: affected, fixed or not affected, and what to do.

red hat product security vex CVE-2026-80587 updated cvss 5.5

kernel: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions

  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 perf, kernel, bpftool, kernel-rt, kernel-core, kernel-tools, +29 more Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 rv, perf, rtla, kernel, bpftool, libperf, +83 more Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 kernel
    affected: workaround, no fix available “Fix deferred”
  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 perf, kernel, python-perf, kernel-kdump, kernel-firmware, kernel-bootwrapper, +1 more Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 perf, kernel, bpftool, kernel-rt, python-perf, kernel-kdump, +8 more
    not affected: vulnerable code not present

Red Hat CSAF VEX © Red Hat, Inc., from https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/; changed: reduced to product statuses and remediations. CC BY 4.0 · csaf

CISA SSVC

Exploitation
none
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
total
Assessed
23 d ago

Exploit prediction

0.52% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 44% of all scored CVEs (FIRST EPSS, 2026-11-08).

CVSS scores

assigned by version score vector
CNA 3.1 9.8 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Affected products

  • Linux Linux

Classification

Technology feeds

References

Sources

Fencer Vulns keeps one entry per vulnerability: the CVE id wins, then GHSA, and records that alias each other are merged, except that two CVEs always keep separate entries. The same data is available as JSON.