In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tracefs: Reset permissions on remount if permissions are options
There's an inconsistency with the way permissions are handled in tracefs.
Because the permissions are generated when accessed, they default to the
root inode's permission if they were never set by the user. If the user
sets the permissions, then a flag is set and the permissions are saved via
the inode (for tracefs files) or an internal attribute field (for
eventfs).
But if a remount happens that specify the permissions, all the files that
were not changed by the user gets updated, but the ones that were are not.
If the user were to remount the file system with a given permission, then
all files and directories within that file system should be updated.
This can cause security issues if a file's permission was updated but the
admin forgot about it. They could incorrectly think that remounting with
permissions set would update all files, but miss some.
For example:
# cd /sys/kernel/tracing
# chgrp 1002 current_tracer
# ls -l
[..]
-rw-r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_size_kb
-rw-r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_subbuf_size_kb
-r--r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_total_size_kb
-rw-r----- 1 root lkp 0 May 1 21:25 current_tracer
-rw-r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 dynamic_events
-r--r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 dyn_ftrace_total_info
-r--r----- 1 root root 0 May 1 21:25 enabled_functions
Where current_tracer now has group "lkp".
# mount -o remount,gid=1001 .
# ls -l
-rw-r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_size_kb
-rw-r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_subbuf_size_kb
-r--r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 buffer_total_size_kb
-rw-r----- 1 root lkp 0 May 1 21:25 current_tracer
-rw-r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 dynamic_events
-r--r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 dyn_ftrace_total_info
-r--r----- 1 root tracing 0 May 1 21:25 enabled_functions
Everything changed but the "current_tracer".
Add a new link list that keeps track of all the tracefs_inodes which has
the permission flags that tell if the file/dir should use the root inode's
permission or not. Then on remount, clear all the flags so that the
default behavior of using the root inode's permission is done for all
files and directories.
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 2026-10-27). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)14 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 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