In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
USB: hub: Ignore non-compliant devices with too many configs or interfaces
Robert Morris created a test program which can cause
usb_hub_to_struct_hub() to dereference a NULL or inappropriate
pointer:
Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address
0xcccccccccccccccc: 0000 [#1] SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC PTI
CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 117 Comm: kworker/7:1 Not tainted 6.13.0-rc3-00017-gf44d154d6e3d #14
Hardware name: FreeBSD BHYVE/BHYVE, BIOS 14.0 10/17/2021
Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event
RIP: 0010:usb_hub_adjust_deviceremovable+0x78/0x110
...
Call Trace:
? die_addr+0x31/0x80
? exc_general_protection+0x1b4/0x3c0
? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30
? usb_hub_adjust_deviceremovable+0x78/0x110
hub_probe+0x7c7/0xab0
usb_probe_interface+0x14b/0x350
really_probe+0xd0/0x2d0
? __pfx___device_attach_driver+0x10/0x10
__driver_probe_device+0x6e/0x110
driver_probe_device+0x1a/0x90
__device_attach_driver+0x7e/0xc0
bus_for_each_drv+0x7f/0xd0
__device_attach+0xaa/0x1a0
bus_probe_device+0x8b/0xa0
device_add+0x62e/0x810
usb_set_configuration+0x65d/0x990
usb_generic_driver_probe+0x4b/0x70
usb_probe_device+0x36/0xd0
The cause of this error is that the device has two interfaces, and the
hub driver binds to interface 1 instead of interface 0, which is where
usb_hub_to_struct_hub() looks.
We can prevent the problem from occurring by refusing to accept hub
devices that violate the USB spec by having more than one
configuration or interface.
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 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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