In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: qla2xxx: validate nvme_local_port correctly
The driver load failed with error message,
qla2xxx [0000:04:00.0]-ffff:0: register_localport failed: ret=ffffffef
and with a kernel crash,
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000070
Workqueue: events_unbound qla_register_fcport_fn [qla2xxx]
RIP: 0010:nvme_fc_register_remoteport+0x16/0x430 [nvme_fc]
RSP: 0018:ffffaaa040eb3d98 EFLAGS: 00010282
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9dfb46b78c00 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: ffff9dfb46b78da8 RSI: ffffaaa040eb3e08 RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: ffff9dfb612a0a58 R08: ffffffffaf1d6270 R09: 3a34303a30303030
R10: 34303a303030305b R11: 2078787832616c71 R12: ffff9dfb46b78dd4
R13: ffff9dfb46b78c24 R14: ffff9dfb41525300 R15: ffff9dfb46b78da8
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9dfc67c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000000000070 CR3: 000000018da10004 CR4: 00000000000206f0
Call Trace:
qla_nvme_register_remote+0xeb/0x1f0 [qla2xxx]
? qla2x00_dfs_create_rport+0x231/0x270 [qla2xxx]
qla2x00_update_fcport+0x2a1/0x3c0 [qla2xxx]
qla_register_fcport_fn+0x54/0xc0 [qla2xxx]
Exit the qla_nvme_register_remote() function when qla_nvme_register_hba()
fails and correctly validate nvme_local_port.
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
- 0.9% 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