In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: l2cap: Check encryption key size on incoming connection
This is required for passing GAP/SEC/SEM/BI-04-C PTS test case:
Security Mode 4 Level 4, Responder - Invalid Encryption Key Size
This tests the security key with size from 1 to 15 bytes while the
Security Mode 4 Level 4 requests 16 bytes key size.
Currently PTS fails with the following logs:
- expected:Connection Response:
Code: [3 (0x03)] Code
Identifier: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt)
Length: [8 (0x0008)]
Destination CID: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt)
Source CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Result: [3 (0x0003)] Connection refused - Security block
Status: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt),
but received:Connection Response:
Code: [3 (0x03)] Code
Identifier: [1 (0x01)]
Length: [8 (0x0008)]
Destination CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Source CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Result: [0 (0x0000)] Connection Successful
Status: [0 (0x0000)] No further information available
And HCI logs:
< HCI Command: Read Encrypti.. (0x05|0x0008) plen 2
Handle: 14 Address: 00:1B:DC:F2:24:10 (Vencer Co., Ltd.)
> HCI Event: Command Complete (0x0e) plen 7
Read Encryption Key Size (0x05|0x0008) ncmd 1
Status: Success (0x00)
Handle: 14 Address: 00:1B:DC:F2:24:10 (Vencer Co., Ltd.)
Key size: 7
> ACL Data RX: Handle 14 flags 0x02 dlen 12
L2CAP: Connection Request (0x02) ident 1 len 4
PSM: 4097 (0x1001)
Source CID: 64
< ACL Data TX: Handle 14 flags 0x00 dlen 16
L2CAP: Connection Response (0x03) ident 1 len 8
Destination CID: 64
Source CID: 64
Result: Connection successful (0x0000)
Status: No further information available (0x0000)
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
- <0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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