In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ksmbd: fix durable fd leak on ClientGUID mismatch in durable v2 open
ksmbd_lookup_fd_cguid() returns a ksmbd_file with its refcount
incremented via ksmbd_fp_get(). parse_durable_handle_context() in
the DURABLE_REQ_V2 case properly releases this reference on every
path inside the ClientGUID-match branch, either by calling
ksmbd_put_durable_fd() or by transferring ownership to dh_info->fp
for a successful reconnect. However, when an entry exists in the
global file table with the same CreateGuid but a different
ClientGUID, the code simply falls through to the new-open path
without dropping the reference obtained from ksmbd_lookup_fd_cguid().
Per MS-SMB2 section 3.3.5.9.10 ("Handling the
SMB2_CREATE_DURABLE_HANDLE_REQUEST_V2 Create Context"), the server
MUST locate an Open whose Open.CreateGuid matches the request's
CreateGuid AND whose Open.ClientGuid matches the ClientGuid of the
connection that received the request. If no such Open is found, the
server MUST continue with the normal open execution phase. A
CreateGuid hit with a ClientGUID mismatch is therefore the
"Open not found" case: proceeding with a new open is correct, but
the reference obtained purely as a side effect of the lookup must
not be leaked.
Repeated requests that hit this mismatch pin global_ft entries,
prevent __ksmbd_close_fd() from ever running for the corresponding
files, and defeat the durable scavenger, leading to long-lived
resource leaks.
Release the reference in the mismatch path and clear dh_info->fp so
subsequent logic does not mistake a non-matching lookup result for
a reconnect target.
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 (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