In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
firmware_loader: Block path traversal
Most firmware names are hardcoded strings, or are constructed from fairly
constrained format strings where the dynamic parts are just some hex
numbers or such.
However, there are a couple codepaths in the kernel where firmware file
names contain string components that are passed through from a device or
semi-privileged userspace; the ones I could find (not counting interfaces
that require root privileges) are:
- lpfc_sli4_request_firmware_update() seems to construct the firmware
filename from "ModelName", a string that was previously parsed out of
some descriptor ("Vital Product Data") in lpfc_fill_vpd()
- nfp_net_fw_find() seems to construct a firmware filename from a model
name coming from nfp_hwinfo_lookup(pf->hwinfo, "nffw.partno"), which I
think parses some descriptor that was read from the device.
(But this case likely isn't exploitable because the format string looks
like "netronome/nic_%s", and there shouldn't be any *folders* starting
with "netronome/nic_". The previous case was different because there,
the "%s" is *at the start* of the format string.)
- module_flash_fw_schedule() is reachable from the
ETHTOOL_MSG_MODULE_FW_FLASH_ACT netlink command, which is marked as
GENL_UNS_ADMIN_PERM (meaning CAP_NET_ADMIN inside a user namespace is
enough to pass the privilege check), and takes a userspace-provided
firmware name.
(But I think to reach this case, you need to have CAP_NET_ADMIN over a
network namespace that a special kind of ethernet device is mapped into,
so I think this is not a viable attack path in practice.)
Fix it by rejecting any firmware names containing ".." path components.
For what it's worth, I went looking and haven't found any USB device
drivers that use the firmware loader dangerously.
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
- 0.3% 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 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