CVE-2026-52986

CVE-2026-52986

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: don't use simple_strtoul Replace unsafe port parsing in epaddr_len(), ct_sip_parse_header_uri(), and ct_sip_parse_request() with a new sip_parse_port() helper that validates each digit against the buffer limit, eliminating the use of simple_strtoul() which assumes NUL-terminated strings. The previous code dereferenced pointers without bounds checks after sip_parse_addr() and relied on simple_strtoul() on non-NUL-terminated skb data. A port that reaches the buffer limit without a trailing character is also rejected as malformed. Also get rid of all simple_strtoul() usage in conntrack, prefer a stricter version instead. There are intentional changes: - Bail out if number is > UINT_MAX and indicate a failure, same for too long sequences. While we do accept 05535 as port 5535, we will not accept e.g. 'sip:10.0.0.1:005060'. While its syntactically valid under RFC 3261, we should restrict th...

CVE-2026-52986

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: don't use simple_strtoul Replace unsafe port parsing in epaddr_len(), ct_sip_parse_header_uri(), and ct_sip_parse_request() with a new sip_parse_port() helper that validates each digit against the buffer limit, eliminating the use of simple_strtoul() which assumes NUL-terminated strings. The previous code dereferenced pointers without bounds checks after sip_parse_addr() and relied on simple_strtoul() on non-NUL-terminated skb data. A port that reaches the buffer limit without a trailing character is also rejected as malformed. Also get rid of all simple_strtoul() usage in conntrack, prefer a stricter version instead. There are intentional changes: - Bail out if number is > UINT_MAX and indicate a failure, same for too long sequences. While we do accept 05535 as port 5535, we will not accept e.g. 'sip:10.0.0.1:005060'. While its syntactically valid under RFC 3261, we should restrict th...

CVE-2026-52986

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: don't use simple_strtoul Replace unsafe port parsing in epaddr_len(), ct_sip_parse_header_uri(), and ct_sip_parse_request() with a new sip_parse_port() helper that validates each digit against the buffer limit, eliminating the use of simple_strtoul() which assumes NUL-terminated strings. The previous code dereferenced pointers without bounds checks after sip_parse_addr() and relied on simple_strtoul() on non-NUL-terminated skb data. A port that reaches the buffer limit without a trailing character is also rejected as malformed. Also get rid of all simple_strtoul() usage in conntrack, prefer a stricter version instead. There are intentional changes: - Bail out if number is > UINT_MAX and indicate a failure, same for too long sequences. While we do accept 05535 as port 5535, we will not accept e.g. 'sip:10.0.0.1:005060'. While its syntactically valid under RFC 3261, we should r

CVE-2026-52986

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

GHSA-p6jx-f9x6-6955

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: don't use simple_strtoul Replace unsafe port parsing in epaddr_len(), ct_sip_parse_header_uri(), and ct_sip_parse_request() with a new sip_parse_port() helper that validates each digit against the buffer limit, eliminating the use of simple_strtoul() which assumes NUL-terminated strings. The previous code dereferenced pointers without bounds checks after sip_parse_addr() and relied on simple_strtoul() on non-NUL-terminated skb data. A port that reaches the buffer limit without a trailing character is also rejected as malformed. Also get rid of all simple_strtoul() usage in conntrack, prefer a stricter version instead. There are intentional changes: - Bail out if number is > UINT_MAX and indicate a failure, same for too long sequences. While we do accept 05535 as port 5535, we will not accept e.g. 'sip:10.0.0.1:005060'. While its syntactically valid under RFC 3261, we shoul...