Skip to content

CVE-2026-45842

NULL Pointer Dereference: is CVE-2026-45842real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-476 · NULL Pointer Dereference
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Linux

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: slip: reject VJ receive packets on instances with no rstate array slhc_init() accepts rslots == 0 as a valid configuration, with the documented meaning of 'no receive compression'. In that case the allocation loop in slhc_init() is skipped, so comp->rstate stays NULL and comp->rslot_limit stays 0 (from the kzalloc of struct slcompress). The receive helpers do not defend against that configuration. slhc_uncompress() dereferences comp->rstate[x] when the VJ header carries an explicit connection ID, and slhc_remember() later assigns cs = &comp->rstate[...] after only comparing the packet's slot number to comp->rslot_limit. Because rslot_limit is 0, slot 0 passes the range check, and the code dereferences a NULL rstate. The configuration is reachable in-tree through PPP. PPPIOCSMAXCID stores its argument in a signed int, and (val >> 16) uses arithmetic shift. Passing 0xffff0000 therefore sign-extends to -1, so val2 + 1 is 0 and ppp_generic.c ends up calling slhc_init(0, 1). Because /dev/ppp open is gated by ns_capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN), the whole path is reachable from an unprivileged user namespace. Once the malformed VJ state is installed, any inbound VJ-compressed or VJ-uncompressed frame that selects slot 0 crashes the kernel in softirq context: Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] RIP: 0010:slhc_uncompress (drivers/net/slip/slhc.c:519) Call Trace: <TASK> ppp_receive_nonmp_frame (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2466) ppp_input (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2359) ppp_async_process (drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c:492) tasklet_action_common (kernel/softirq.c:926) handle_softirqs (kernel/softirq.c:623) run_ksoftirqd (kernel/softirq.c:1055) smpboot_thread_fn (kernel/smpboot.c:160) kthread (kernel/kthread.c:436) ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:164) </TASK> Reject the receive side on such instances instead of touching rstate. slhc_uncompress() falls through to its existing 'bad' label, which bumps sls_i_error and enters the toss state. slhc_remember() mirrors that with an explicit sls_i_error increment followed by slhc_toss(); the sls_i_runt counter is not used here because a missing rstate is an internal configuration state, not a runt packet. The transmit path is unaffected: the only in-tree caller that picks rslots from userspace (ppp_generic.c) still supplies tslots >= 1, and slip.c always calls slhc_init(16, 16), so comp->tstate remains valid and slhc_compress() continues to work.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45842
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45842/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45842)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45842"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45842/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45842"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-476 · NULL Pointer Dereference.