In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: fix NULL pointer dereference in ceph_mds_auth_match()
The CephFS kernel client has regression starting from 6.18-rc1.
We have issue in ceph_mds_auth_match() if fs_name == NULL:
const char fs_name = mdsc->fsc->mount_options->mds_namespace;
...
if (auth->match.fs_name && strcmp(auth->match.fs_name, fs_name)) {
/ fsname mismatch, try next one */
return 0;
}
Patrick Donnelly suggested that: In summary, we should definitely start
decoding fs_name from the MDSMap and do strict authorizations checks
against it. Note that the -o mds_namespace=foo should only be used for
selecting the file system to mount and nothing else. It's possible
no mds_namespace is specified but the kernel will mount the only
file system that exists which may have name "foo".
This patch reworks ceph_mdsmap_decode() and namespace_equals() with
the goal of supporting the suggested concept. Now struct ceph_mdsmap
contains m_fs_name field that receives copy of extracted FS name
by ceph_extract_encoded_string(). For the case of "old" CephFS file
systems, it is used "cephfs" name.
[ idryomov: replace redundant %*pE with %s in ceph_mdsmap_decode(),
get rid of a series of strlen() calls in ceph_namespace_match(),
drop changes to namespace_equals() body to avoid treating empty
mds_namespace as equal, drop changes to ceph_mdsc_handle_fsmap()
as namespace_equals() isn't an equivalent substitution there ]
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 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