Basically, researchers started naming vulnerabilities when they thought they mattered. 'Shellshock' and 'EternalBlue' are both deserving of names, IMO.
Then researchers started naming everything, many of the vulnerabilities had zero real world impact, were almost entirely theoretical (many crypto vulns), or required chaining of other attacks to actually achieve anything.
The KNoB description says 'is vulnerable to packet injection by an unauthenticated, adjacent attacker that could result in information disclosure and/or escalation of privileges.' which is sounds extremely caveated. They haven't demonstrated an actual attack so my guess is they've overplayed the significance of the vulnerability entirely and this grants the ability to PITM traffic (which really isn't a defensible boundary, anyway).
Most decent hackers I know laugh at named vulnerabilities unless their technical impact actually matters. Dirty COW took the piss entirely, https://dirtycow.ninja, https://www.zazzle.com/collections/white_theme-1195879626504... .