# CVE-2025-37959: bpf: Scrub packet on bpf_redirect_peer

> Attackers can leak network namespace data or cause traffic drops via improper packet scrubbing in bpf_redirect_peer, affecting Linux kernel users.

- **Severity:** Critical 9.4 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Not needed
- **Attackable:** Over the internet
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 20 May 2025
- **Updated:** 15 Oct 2026
- **Also known as:** AZL-72572, BELL-CVE-2025-37959, DEBIAN-CVE-2025-37959, GHSA-g5rc-wjvg-94w5, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-11-CVE-2025-37959, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-12-CVE-2025-37959, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2204-CVE-2025-37959, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2404-CVE-2025-37959, UBUNTU-CVE-2025-37959

## What is CVE-2025-37959?

CVE-2025-37959 is a critical vulnerability in Debian Debian Linux, published on 20 May 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

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

bpf: Scrub packet on bpf_redirect_peer

When bpf_redirect_peer is used to redirect packets to a device in
another network namespace, the skb isn't scrubbed. That can lead skb
information from one namespace to be "misused" in another namespace.

As one example, this is causing Cilium to drop traffic when using
bpf_redirect_peer to redirect packets that just went through IPsec
decryption to a container namespace. The following pwru trace shows (1)
the packet path from the host's XFRM layer to the container's XFRM
layer where it's dropped and (2) the number of active skb extensions at
each function.

    NETNS       MARK  IFACE  TUPLE                                FUNC
    4026533547  d00   eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  xfrm_rcv_cb
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026533547  d00   eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  xfrm4_rcv_cb
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026533547  d00   eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  gro_cells_receive
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    [...]
    4026533547  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  skb_do_redirect
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  ip_rcv
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  ip_rcv_core
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    [...]
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  udp_queue_rcv_one_skb
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  __xfrm_policy_check
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  __xfrm_decode_session
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  security_xfrm_decode_session
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,
    4026534999  0     eth0   10.244.3.124:35473->10.244.2.158:53  kfree_skb_reason(SKB_DROP_REASON_XFRM_POLICY)
                             .active_extensions = (__u8)2,

In this case, there are no XFRM policies in the container's network
namespace so the drop is unexpected. When we decrypt the IPsec packet,
the XFRM state used for decryption is set in the skb extensions. This
information is preserved across the netns switch. When we reach the
XFRM policy check in the container's netns, __xfrm_policy_check drops
the packet with LINUX_MIB_XFRMINNOPOLS because a (container-side) XFRM
policy can't be found that matches the (host-side) XFRM state used for
decryption.

This patch fixes this by scrubbing the packet when using
bpf_redirect_peer, as is done on typical netns switches via veth
devices except skb->mark and skb->tstamp are not zeroed.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-37959?

It affects 2 products.


Products: Debian Debian Linux, Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2025-37959?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2025-37959 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-37959 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Debian Debian Linux

- [CVE-2015-3306](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2015-3306/): ProFTPD Improper Access Control (critical 10.0, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2025-49113](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-49113/): RoundCube Webmail Deserialization of Untrusted Data (critical 9.9, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-24061](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-24061/): GNU InetUtils Argument Injection (critical 9.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2025-39682](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-39682/): Linux Kernel Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (critical 9.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2024-9680](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-9680/): Mozilla Firefox Use-After-Free (critical 9.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2025-37959 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2025-37959 is a critical vulnerability in Debian Debian Linux, published on 20 May 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-37959 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Debian Debian Linux. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-37959/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-37959/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37959
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-37959
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-37959

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-37959/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.
