In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
NFSD: Fix the behavior of READ near OFFSET_MAX
Dan Aloni reports:
> Due to commit 8cfb9015280d ("NFS: Always provide aligned buffers to
> the RPC read layers") on the client, a read of 0xfff is aligned up
> to server rsize of 0x1000.
>
> As a result, in a test where the server has a file of size
> 0x7fffffffffffffff, and the client tries to read from the offset
> 0x7ffffffffffff000, the read causes loff_t overflow in the server
> and it returns an NFS code of EINVAL to the client. The client as
> a result indefinitely retries the request.
The Linux NFS client does not handle NFS?ERR_INVAL, even though all
NFS specifications permit servers to return that status code for a
READ.
Instead of NFS?ERR_INVAL, have out-of-range READ requests succeed
and return a short result. Set the EOF flag in the result to prevent
the client from retrying the READ request. This behavior appears to
be consistent with Solaris NFS servers.
Note that NFSv3 and NFSv4 use u64 offset values on the wire. These
must be converted to loff_t internally before use -- an implicit
type cast is not adequate for this purpose. Otherwise VFS checks
against sb->s_maxbytes do not work properly.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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