In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
exfat: check if cluster num is valid
Syzbot reported slab-out-of-bounds read in exfat_clear_bitmap.
This was triggered by reproducer calling truncute with size 0,
which causes the following trace:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in exfat_clear_bitmap+0x147/0x490 fs/exfat/balloc.c:174
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888115aa9508 by task syz-executor251/365
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x1e2/0x24b lib/dump_stack.c:118
print_address_description+0x81/0x3c0 mm/kasan/report.c:233
__kasan_report mm/kasan/report.c:419 [inline]
kasan_report+0x1a4/0x1f0 mm/kasan/report.c:436
__asan_report_load8_noabort+0x14/0x20 mm/kasan/report_generic.c:309
exfat_clear_bitmap+0x147/0x490 fs/exfat/balloc.c:174
exfat_free_cluster+0x25a/0x4a0 fs/exfat/fatent.c:181
__exfat_truncate+0x99e/0xe00 fs/exfat/file.c:217
exfat_truncate+0x11b/0x4f0 fs/exfat/file.c:243
exfat_setattr+0xa03/0xd40 fs/exfat/file.c:339
notify_change+0xb76/0xe10 fs/attr.c:336
do_truncate+0x1ea/0x2d0 fs/open.c:65
Move the is_valid_cluster() helper from fatent.c to a common
header to make it reusable in other *.c files. And add is_valid_cluster()
to validate if cluster number is within valid range in exfat_clear_bitmap()
and exfat_set_bitmap().
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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