In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: carl9170: add a proper sanity check for endpoints
Syzkaller reports [1] hitting a warning which is caused by presence
of a wrong endpoint type at the URB sumbitting stage. While there
was a check for a specific 4th endpoint, since it can switch types
between bulk and interrupt, other endpoints are trusted implicitly.
Similar warning is triggered in a couple of other syzbot issues [2].
Fix the issue by doing a comprehensive check of all endpoints
taking into account difference between high- and full-speed
configuration.
[1] Syzkaller report:
...
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4721 at drivers/usb/core/urb.c:504 usb_submit_urb+0xed6/0x1880 drivers/usb/core/urb.c:504
...
Call Trace:
carl9170_usb_send_rx_irq_urb+0x273/0x340 drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/usb.c:504
carl9170_usb_init_device drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/usb.c:939 [inline]
carl9170_usb_firmware_finish drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/usb.c:999 [inline]
carl9170_usb_firmware_step2+0x175/0x240 drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/usb.c:1028
request_firmware_work_func+0x130/0x240 drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c:1107
process_one_work+0x9bf/0x1710 kernel/workqueue.c:2289
worker_thread+0x669/0x1090 kernel/workqueue.c:2436
kthread+0x2e8/0x3a0 kernel/kthread.c:376
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:308
[2] Related syzkaller crashes:
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
- 0.3% 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