Security assessments indicate that CVE-2026-23200 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕟 19 Mar 2026, 16:41 UTC
Originally published on: 🕔 14 Feb 2026, 17:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 32 days
CVSS Release: version 3
nvd@nist.gov
Primary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVE-2026-23200: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: Fix ECMP sibling count mismatch when clearing RTF_ADDRCONF syzbot reported a kernel BUG in fib6_add_rt2node() when adding an IPv6 route. [0] Commit f72514b3c569 ("ipv6: clear RA flags when adding a static route") introduced logic to clear RTF_ADDRCONF from existing routes when a static route with the same nexthop is added. However, this causes a problem when the existing route has a gateway. When RTF_ADDRCONF is cleared from a route that has a gateway, that route becomes eligible for ECMP, i.e. rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() returns true. The issue is that this route was never added to the fib6_siblings list. This leads to a mismatch between the following counts: - The sibling count computed by iterating fib6_next chain, which includes the newly ECMP-eligible route - The actual siblings in fib6_siblings list, which does not include that route When a subsequent ECMP route is added, fib6_add_rt2node() hits BUG_ON(sibling->fib6_nsiblings != rt->fib6_nsiblings) because the counts don't match. Fix this by only clearing RTF_ADDRCONF when the existing route does not have a gateway. Routes without a gateway cannot qualify for ECMP anyway (rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() requires fib_nh_gw_family), so clearing RTF_ADDRCONF on them is safe and matches the original intent of the commit. [0]: kernel BUG at net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6010 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/25/2025 RIP: 0010:fib6_add_rt2node+0x3433/0x3470 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> fib6_add+0x8da/0x18a0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1532 __ip6_ins_rt net/ipv6/route.c:1351 [inline] ip6_route_add+0xde/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3946 ipv6_route_ioctl+0x35c/0x480 net/ipv6/route.c:4571 inet6_ioctl+0x219/0x280 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:577 sock_do_ioctl+0xdc/0x300 net/socket.c:1245 sock_ioctl+0x576/0x790 net/socket.c:1366 vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:597 [inline] __se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:583 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
The exploitability of CVE-2026-23200 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).
CVE-2026-23200 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.
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.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-23200, 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.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-23200, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
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.