In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: hci_conn: Fix null ptr deref in hci_abort_conn()
hci_abort_conn() read hci_skb_event(hdev->sent_cmd) when a connection
was pending, but hdev->sent_cmd can be NULL while req_status is still
HCI_REQ_PEND, leading to a NULL pointer dereference and a general
protection fault from the hci_rx_work() receive path.
Instead of inspecting hdev->sent_cmd, track the in-flight create
connection command with a new per-connection HCI_CONN_CREATE flag and
route all cancellation through hci_cancel_connect_sync(), which
dispatches to a dedicated per-type cancel function. The create command
is in exactly one of two states: still queued, or in flight. The cancel
function holds cmd_sync_work_lock across the whole decision: the worker
takes this lock to dequeue every entry, so while it is held a queued
command cannot start running and an in-flight command cannot complete
and let the next command become pending. This keeps the flag test and
hci_cmd_sync_cancel() atomic with respect to the worker, so a queued
command is simply dequeued, and an in-flight command owned by this
connection is cancelled without the risk of cancelling an unrelated
command that became pending in the meantime. CIS uses the same flag
mechanism via HCI_CONN_CREATE_CIS but cannot be dequeued per-connection.
hci_acl_create_conn_sync() and hci_le_create_conn_sync() clear
HCI_CONN_CREATE after the create command completes, but the command
status handler can free conn via hci_conn_del() (for example when the
controller rejects the connection) while the worker is still blocked on
the connection complete event. Hold a reference on conn across the
create command so the flag can be cleared without a use-after-free.
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