In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
firmware: qcom: uefisecapp: Fix memory related IO errors and crashes
It turns out that while the QSEECOM APP_SEND command has specific fields
for request and response buffers, uefisecapp expects them both to be in
a single memory region. Failure to adhere to this has (so far) resulted
in either no response being written to the response buffer (causing an
EIO to be emitted down the line), the SCM call to fail with EINVAL
(i.e., directly from TZ/firmware), or the device to be hard-reset.
While this issue can be triggered deterministically, in the current form
it seems to happen rather sporadically (which is why it has gone
unnoticed during earlier testing). This is likely due to the two
kzalloc() calls (for request and response) being directly after each
other. Which means that those likely return consecutive regions most of
the time, especially when not much else is going on in the system.
Fix this by allocating a single memory region for both request and
response buffers, properly aligning both structs inside it. This
unfortunately also means that the qcom_scm_qseecom_app_send() interface
needs to be restructured, as it should no longer map the DMA regions
separately. Therefore, move the responsibility of DMA allocation (or
mapping) to the caller.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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