CVE-2025-38512
Description
From CVE.org
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: prevent A-MSDU attacks in mesh networks This patch is a mitigation to prevent the A-MSDU spoofing vulnerability for mesh networks. The initial update to the IEEE 802.11 standard, in response to the FragAttacks, missed this case (CVE-2025-27558). It can be considered a variant of CVE-2020-24588 but for mesh networks. This patch tries to detect if a standard MSDU was turned into an A-MSDU by an adversary. This is done by parsing a received A-MSDU as a standard MSDU, calculating the length of the Mesh Control header, and seeing if the 6 bytes after this header equal the start of an rfc1042 header. If equal, this is a strong indication of an ongoing attack attempt. This defense was tested with mac80211_hwsim against a mesh network that uses an empty Mesh Address Extension field, i.e., when four addresses are used, and when using a 12-byte Mesh Address Extension field, i.e., when six addresses are used. Functionality of normal MSDUs and A-MSDUs was also tested, and confirmed working, when using both an empty and 12-byte Mesh Address Extension field. It was also tested with mac80211_hwsim that A-MSDU attacks in non-mesh networks keep being detected and prevented. Note that the vulnerability being patched, and the defense being implemented, was also discussed in the following paper and in the following IEEE 802.11 presentation: https://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/wisec2025.pdf https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-0949-00-000m-a-msdu-mesh-spoof-protection.docx
Statement
This vulnerability in the Linux kernel's Wi-Fi component allows an adjacent attacker to perform A-MSDU spoofing attacks in mesh networks, leading to a high integrity impact. Confidentiality could potentially be impacted, if there is exposure of network‑internal traffic or services via the spoofed Ethernet frames. Similarly, availability may be impacted if the spoofed packets cause problems like traffic disruption or routing instabilities.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.6 | 7.8 | 8.8 |
| Attack Vector | Adjacent Network | Local | Adjacent Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Low | Low |
| Privileges Required | None | Low | None |
| User Interaction | None | None | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | Low | High | High |
| Integrity Impact | High | High | High |
| Availability Impact | Low | High | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity,Other
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data; Other
Integrity checks usually use a secret key that helps authenticate the data origin. Skipping integrity checking generally opens up the possibility that new data from an invalid source can be injected.
Integrity,Other
Technical Impact: Other
Data that is parsed and used may be corrupted.
Non-Repudiation,Other
Technical Impact: Hide Activities; Other
Without a checksum check, it is impossible to determine if any changes have been made to the data after it was sent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
