In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: wwan: t7xx: fix potential skb->frags overflow in RX path
When receiving data in the DPMAIF RX path,
the t7xx_dpmaif_set_frag_to_skb() function adds
page fragments to an skb without checking if the number of
fragments has exceeded MAX_SKB_FRAGS. This could lead to a buffer overflow
in skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[] array, corrupting adjacent memory and
potentially causing kernel crashes or other undefined behavior.
This issue was identified through static code analysis by comparing with a
similar vulnerability fixed in the mt76 driver commit b102f0c522cf ("mt76:
fix array overflow on receiving too many fragments for a packet").
The vulnerability could be triggered if the modem firmware sends packets
with excessive fragments. While under normal protocol conditions (MTU 3080
bytes, BAT buffer 3584 bytes),
a single packet should not require additional
fragments, the kernel should not blindly trust firmware behavior.
Malicious, buggy, or compromised firmware could potentially craft packets
with more fragments than the kernel expects.
Fix this by adding a bounds check before calling skb_add_rx_frag() to
ensure nr_frags does not exceed MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
The check must be performed before unmapping to avoid a page leak
and double DMA unmap during device teardown.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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