CVE intelligence

CVE-2026-80901

Vulnerability intelligence

Published Sep 4, 2026Sources checked Oct 27, 2026

N/ACVSS not listedScore unavailable

What this means

Review the available evidence

CVE-2026-80901. 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 2, 2026

Release Notes

Vendor-listed releases

6.6.152.1-1

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-2026-80901?

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

ipvs: fix the checksum validations

ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel.

Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware.

Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP.

Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP.

IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING.

Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static.

Source: NVD