In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/tls: fix slab-out-of-bounds bug in decrypt_internal
The memory size of tls_ctx->rx.iv for AES128-CCM is 12 setting in
tls_set_sw_offload(). The return value of crypto_aead_ivsize()
for "ccm(aes)" is 16. So memcpy() require 16 bytes from 12 bytes
memory space will trigger slab-out-of-bounds bug as following:
==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in decrypt_internal+0x385/0xc40 [tls]
Read of size 16 at addr ffff888114e84e60 by task tls/10911
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44
print_report.cold+0x5e/0x5db
? decrypt_internal+0x385/0xc40 [tls]
kasan_report+0xab/0x120
? decrypt_internal+0x385/0xc40 [tls]
kasan_check_range+0xf9/0x1e0
memcpy+0x20/0x60
decrypt_internal+0x385/0xc40 [tls]
? tls_get_rec+0x2e0/0x2e0 [tls]
? process_rx_list+0x1a5/0x420 [tls]
? tls_setup_from_iter.constprop.0+0x2e0/0x2e0 [tls]
decrypt_skb_update+0x9d/0x400 [tls]
tls_sw_recvmsg+0x3c8/0xb50 [tls]
Allocated by task 10911:
kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40
__kasan_kmalloc+0x81/0xa0
tls_set_sw_offload+0x2eb/0xa20 [tls]
tls_setsockopt+0x68c/0x700 [tls]
__sys_setsockopt+0xfe/0x1b0
Replace the crypto_aead_ivsize() with prot->iv_size + prot->salt_size
when memcpy() iv value in TLS_1_3_VERSION scenario.
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
- 0.7% 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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