In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5: Fix MCIA register buffer overflow on 32 dword reads
The MCIA register can return up to 32 dwords (128 bytes) when the device
advertises the mcia_32dwords capability, but struct
mlx5_ifc_mcia_reg_bits only defines dword_0..11, leaving room for just
12 dwords (48 bytes) of data.
mlx5_query_mcia() clamps the read size to mlx5_mcia_max_bytes() and then
memcpy()s that many bytes out of the register, potentially reading past
the end of the 'out' buffer. On kernels built with FORTIFY_SOURCE this
is caught as a buffer overflow while reading the module EEPROM via
ethtool:
detected buffer overflow in memcpy
kernel BUG at lib/string_helpers.c:1048!
RIP: 0010:fortify_panic+0x13/0x20
Call Trace:
mlx5_query_mcia.isra.0+0x200/0x210 [mlx5_core]
mlx5_query_module_eeprom_by_page+0x4a/0xa0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_get_module_eeprom_by_page+0xbb/0x120 [mlx5_core]
eeprom_prepare_data+0xf3/0x170
ethnl_default_doit+0xf1/0x3b0
Extend the mcia_reg layout to 32 dwords.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 2026-10-29). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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