In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: mount fails with buffer overflow in strlen
Starting with kernel 5.11 built with CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE mouting an
ocfs2 filesystem with either o2cb or pcmk cluster stack fails with the
trace below. Problem seems to be that strings for cluster stack and
cluster name are not guaranteed to be null terminated in the disk
representation, while strlcpy assumes that the source string is always
null terminated. This causes a read outside of the source string
triggering the buffer overflow detection.
detected buffer overflow in strlen
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at lib/string.c:1149!
invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
CPU: 1 PID: 910 Comm: mount.ocfs2 Not tainted 5.14.0-1-amd64 #1
Debian 5.14.6-2
RIP: 0010:fortify_panic+0xf/0x11
...
Call Trace:
ocfs2_initialize_super.isra.0.cold+0xc/0x18 [ocfs2]
ocfs2_fill_super+0x359/0x19b0 [ocfs2]
mount_bdev+0x185/0x1b0
legacy_get_tree+0x27/0x40
vfs_get_tree+0x25/0xb0
path_mount+0x454/0xa20
__x64_sys_mount+0x103/0x140
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it