CVE intelligence

CVE-2025-71160

Vulnerability intelligence

Published Jan 23, 2026Sources checked Oct 28, 2026

5.5MEDIUMCVSS out of 10

What this means

Review the available evidence

CVE-2025-71160 and is rated Medium severity with a CVSS score of 5.5. It is not in the current CISA KEV record we collected. That does not prove exploitation has not occurred.

What to do next

Remediation and response

Microsoft Security Response Center guidance

Vendor revision: Oct 20, 2026

Release Notes

Ubuntu Security Notices guidance

Vendor revision: Aug 21, 2026

Vendor remediation details

This update corrects flaws in the following subsystems: - Foo-over-UDP (FOU); - ARM64 architecture; - x86 architecture; - Block layer subsystem; - Drivers core; - Null block device driver; - Bluetooth drivers; - Counter interface drivers; - DMA engine subsystem; - DPLL subsystem; - GPIO subsystem; - GPU drivers; - I2C subsystem; - IIO ADC drivers; - IIO subsystem; - InfiniBand drivers; - On-Chip Interconnect management framework; - IOMMU subsystem; - IRQ chip drivers; - Modular ISDN driver; - LED subsystem; - Multiple devices driver; - Media drivers; - UACCE accelerator framework; - MMC subsystem; - Ethernet bonding driver; - Network drivers; - Mellanox network drivers; - Texas Instruments network drivers; - NVME drivers; - Device tree and open firmware driver; - PHY drivers; - x86 platfor

CISA KEVNot listedBased on the latest collected catalog

EPSS0.2%Estimated 30-day exploitation probability

Ransomware useNot markedCISA KEV ransomware field

Threat actors0Source-linked actor relationships

Overview

What is CVE-2025-71160?

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

netfilter: nf_tables: avoid chain re-validation if possible

Hamza Mahfooz reports cpu soft lock-ups in nft_chain_validate():

watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 27s! [iptables-nft-re:37547] [..] RIP: 0010:nft_chain_validate+0xcb/0x110 [nf_tables] [..] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_immediate_validate+0x36/0x50 [nf_tables] nft_chain_validate+0xc9/0x110 [nf_tables] nft_table_validate+0x6b/0xb0 [nf_tables] nf_tables_validate+0x8b/0xa0 [nf_tables] nf_tables_commit+0x1df/0x1eb0 [nf_tables] [..]

Currently nf_tables will traverse the entire table (chain graph), starting from the entry points (base chains), exploring all possible paths (chain jumps). But there are cases where we could avoid revalidation.

Consider: 1 input -> j2 -> j3 2 input -> j2 -> j3 3 input -> j1 -> j2 -> j3

Then the second rule does not need to revalidate j2, and, by extension j3, because this was already checked during validation of the first rule. We need to validate it only for rule 3.

This is needed because chain loop detection also ensures we do not exceed the jump stack: Just because we know that j2 is cycle free, its last jump might now exceed the allowed stack size. We also need to update all reachable chains with the new largest observed call depth.

Care has to be taken to revalidate even if the chain depth won't be an issue: chain validation also ensures that expressions are not called from invalid base chains. For example, the masquerade expression can only be called from NAT postrouting base chains.

Therefore we also need to keep record of the base chain context (type, hooknum) and revalidate if the chain becomes reachable from a different hook location.

Source: NVD