CVE-2025-68227 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-68227
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-68227 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕒 18 Dec 2025, 15:08 UTC
Originally published on: 🕑 16 Dec 2025, 14:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 2 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-68227 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-68227: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: Fix proto fallback detection with BPF The sockmap feature allows bpf syscall from userspace, or based on bpf sockops, replacing the sk_prot of sockets during protocol stack processing with sockmap's custom read/write interfaces. ''' tcp_rcv_state_process() syn_recv_sock()/subflow_syn_recv_sock() tcp_init_transfer(BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB) bpf_skops_established <== sockops bpf_sock_map_update(sk) <== call bpf helper tcp_bpf_update_proto() <== update sk_prot ''' When the server has MPTCP enabled but the client sends a TCP SYN without MPTCP, subflow_syn_recv_sock() performs a fallback on the subflow, replacing the subflow sk's sk_prot with the native sk_prot. ''' subflow_syn_recv_sock() subflow_ulp_fallback() subflow_drop_ctx() mptcp_subflow_ops_undo_override() ''' Then, this subflow can be normally used by sockmap, which replaces the native sk_prot with sockmap's custom sk_prot. The issue occurs when the user executes accept::mptcp_stream_accept::mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(). Here, it uses sk->sk_prot to compare with the native sk_prot, but this is incorrect when sockmap is used, as we may incorrectly set sk->sk_socket->ops. This fix uses the more generic sk_family for the comparison instead. Additionally, this also prevents a WARNING from occurring: result from ./scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 337 at net/mptcp/protocol.c:68 mptcp_stream_accept \ (net/mptcp/protocol.c:4005) Modules linked in: ... PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> do_accept (net/socket.c:1989) __sys_accept4 (net/socket.c:2028 net/socket.c:2057) __x64_sys_accept (net/socket.c:2067) x64_sys_call (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:41) do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130) RIP: 0033:0x7f87ac92b83d ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-68227

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-68227 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-68227

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-68227.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-68227, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-68227, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-68227 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-68227 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-68227 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-68227 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-68227: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-15166 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /updatesupplier.php?action=...
  • CVE-2025-15165 – A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /updatecust...
  • CVE-2025-15164 – A security flaw has been discovered in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This affects an unknown part of the file /goform/SafeMacFilter. The manipulation of th...
  • CVE-2025-15163 – A vulnerability was identified in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /goform/SafeEmailFilter. T...
  • CVE-2025-15067 – Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type vulnerability in Innorix Innorix WP allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects In...