EchelonGraph verdictMonitorNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 4.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
The Bluetooth Mesh Access-layer delayable message queue in subsys/bluetooth/mesh/delayable_msg.c shares three intrusive lists (busy_ctx, free_ctx, free_chunks) and one k_work_delayable between two cooperative threads with no synchronization: bt_mesh_delayable_msg_manage() runs on the Bluetooth host RX thread, while delayable_msg_handler() runs on the system workqueue. Both block while the lists are in an intermediate state — the enqueuer in bt_rand(), both in bt_mesh_access_send() — which lets the other context observe torn state. delayable_msg_handler() used the result of sys_slist_get() on busy_ctx without a NULL check, and allocate_delayable_msg_ctx() tested sys_slist_is_empty() and then assumed a separate sys_slist_get() would succeed.
Because CONFIG_BT_MESH_ACCESS_DELAYABLE_MSG and CONFIG_BT_MESH_ACCESS_DELAYABLE_MSG_CTX_ENABLED default to y, every model response to a received mesh message is parked on this queue, so the enqueuer runs as a direct consequence of inbound traffic. A peer that can get access-layer messages accepted by a model (it must hold the NetKey and a bound AppKey, so a legitimate or compromised network member) controls the arrival rate, the size of the elicited responses and the destination address, and thereby controls occupancy of the 4-entry context pool and the 40-entry chunk pool. Exhausting the chunk pool forces bt_mesh_delayable_msg_manage() down the purge path, which sends and releases the only queued message and leaves busy_ctx empty while the delayable work item is still armed; if the enqueuer then yields, the handler runs against the empty list.
The result is a read-modify-write through a NULL-based pointer (pending_msg->fired_time += 10) at a fixed low address on the system workqueue thread. On typical targets that faults, aborting the system workqueue thread — which stops all workqueue-driven functionality, including the mesh timing machinery — or resetting the node, so the impact is loss of availability of the affected node. The write value and address are fixed and no attacker-controlled length or index is involved, so this is not exploitable for memory corruption or code execution. The same unsynchronized window also allowed one message context to be selected and released by two contexts at once, producing duplicated transmissions, duplicated send-completion callbacks and crossed chunk ownership.
The fix serializes every list mutation with a k_spinlock that is never held across a blocking call, makes push_msg_from_delayable_msgs() detach the queue head atomically so a message being sent is on no list, removes the unchecked sys_slist_get() from delayable_msg_handler(), and drops any message that reaches the front of the queue while the stack is suspended or reset.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.8 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-03). 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.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 referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
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