In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length
Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than
what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes.
Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just
be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted,
so let's protect the kernel.
The existing check protects from short replies. We need to
protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero
rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct
and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation
or short-reply handling:
- cmis_cdb_validate_password()
- cmis_cdb_module_features_get()
- cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get()
so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not
have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message
to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong...
Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from
last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len.
Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload
itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack),
but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard,
so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like
defensive programming.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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