In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
serial: core: check uartclk for zero to avoid divide by zero
Calling ioctl TIOCSSERIAL with an invalid baud_base can
result in uartclk being zero, which will result in a
divide by zero error in uart_get_divisor(). The check for
uartclk being zero in uart_set_info() needs to be done
before other settings are made as subsequent calls to
ioctl TIOCSSERIAL for the same port would be impacted if
the uartclk check was done where uartclk gets set.
Oops: divide error: 0000 PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI
RIP: 0010:uart_get_divisor (drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:580)
Call Trace:
serial8250_get_divisor (drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c:2576
drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c:2589)
serial8250_do_set_termios (drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c:502
drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c:2741)
serial8250_set_termios (drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c:2862)
uart_change_line_settings (./include/linux/spinlock.h:376
./include/linux/serial_core.h:608 drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:222)
uart_port_startup (drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:342)
uart_startup (drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:368)
uart_set_info (drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:1034)
uart_set_info_user (drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:1059)
tty_set_serial (drivers/tty/tty_io.c:2637)
tty_ioctl (drivers/tty/tty_io.c:2647 drivers/tty/tty_io.c:2791)
__x64_sys_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:52 fs/ioctl.c:907
fs/ioctl.c:893 fs/ioctl.c:893)
do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52
(discriminator 1) arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 (discriminator 1))
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130)
Rule: add
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