In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: fix multifs mds auth caps issue
The mds auth caps check should also validate the
fsname along with the associated caps. Not doing
so would result in applying the mds auth caps of
one fs on to the other fs in a multifs ceph cluster.
The bug causes multiple issues w.r.t user
authentication, following is one such example.
Steps to Reproduce (on vstart cluster):
- Create two file systems in a cluster, say 'fsname1' and 'fsname2'
- Authorize read only permission to the user 'client.usr' on fs 'fsname1'
$ceph fs authorize fsname1 client.usr / r
- Authorize read and write permission to the same user 'client.usr' on fs 'fsname2'
$ceph fs authorize fsname2 client.usr / rw
$ceph auth get client.usr >> ./keyring
With above permssions for the user 'client.usr', following is the
expectation.
a. The 'client.usr' should be able to only read the contents
and not allowed to create or delete files on file system 'fsname1'.
b. The 'client.usr' should be able to read/write on file system 'fsname2'.
But, with this bug, the 'client.usr' is allowed to read/write on file
system 'fsname1'. See below.
- Mount the file system 'fsname1' with the user 'client.usr'
$sudo bin/mount.ceph usr@.fsname1=/ /kmnt_fsname1_usr/
- Try creating a file on file system 'fsname1' with user 'client.usr'. This
should fail but passes with this bug.
$touch /kmnt_fsname1_usr/file1
- Mount the file system 'fsname1' with the user 'client.admin' and create a
file.
$sudo bin/mount.ceph admin@.fsname1=/ /kmnt_fsname1_admin
$echo "data" > /kmnt_fsname1_admin/admin_file1
- Try removing an existing file on file system 'fsname1' with the user
'client.usr'. This shoudn't succeed but succeeds with the bug.
$rm -f /kmnt_fsname1_usr/admin_file1
For more information, please take a look at the corresponding mds/fuse patch
and tests added by looking into the tracker mentioned below.
v2: Fix a possible null dereference in doutc
v3: Don't store fsname from mdsmap, validate against
ceph_mount_options's fsname and use it
v4: Code refactor, better warning message and
fix possible compiler warning
[ Slava.Dubeyko: "fsname check failed" -> "fsname mismatch" ]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 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 2026-10-28). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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