Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Scrub packet on...
In 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.
Impact
CVE-2025-37959 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). The vector is requires local access, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. No fixed version is listed yet, so configuration controls and monitoring matter more in the interim.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2025-37959? CVE-2025-37959 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-37959? CVE-2025-37959 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2025-37959? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-37959 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-37959 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-37959 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2025-37959 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.