In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: p54: prevent buffer-overflow in p54_rx_eeprom_readback()
Robert Morris reported:
|If a malicious USB device pretends to be an Intersil p54 wifi
|interface and generates an eeprom_readback message with a large
|eeprom->v1.len, p54_rx_eeprom_readback() will copy data from the
|message beyond the end of priv->eeprom.
|
|static void p54_rx_eeprom_readback(struct p54_common *priv,
| struct sk_buff *skb)
|{
| struct p54_hdr *hdr = (struct p54_hdr *) skb->data;
| struct p54_eeprom_lm86 *eeprom = (struct p54_eeprom_lm86 *) hdr->data;
|
| if (priv->fw_var >= 0x509) {
| memcpy(priv->eeprom, eeprom->v2.data,
| le16_to_cpu(eeprom->v2.len));
| } else {
| memcpy(priv->eeprom, eeprom->v1.data,
| le16_to_cpu(eeprom->v1.len));
| }
| [...]
The eeprom->v{1,2}.len is set by the driver in p54_download_eeprom().
The device is supposed to provide the same length back to the driver.
But yes, it's possible (like shown in the report) to alter the value
to something that causes a crash/panic due to overrun.
This patch addresses the issue by adding the size to the common device
context, so p54_rx_eeprom_readback no longer relies on possibly tampered
values... That said, it also checks if the "firmware" altered the value
and no longer copies them.
The one, small saving grace is: Before the driver tries to read the eeprom,
it needs to upload >a< firmware. the vendor firmware has a proprietary
license and as a reason, it is not present on most distributions by
default.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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