In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvme-tcp: reject a read that transferred too few bytes
nvme_tcp_recv_data() completes a request once the current C2HData PDU
has been consumed. Nothing compares the total bytes received against
the length the command asked for: struct nvme_tcp_request has no
receive-side counter, queue->data_remaining is per queue, and
blk_mq_end_request() completes for blk_rq_bytes(rq) unconditionally
with no residual concept anywhere above.
A controller can therefore answer a 4096-byte read with 512 bytes and
have it reported as a complete read; user space then gets 4096 bytes of
which 3584 are whatever was already in the page. I reproduced that with
a test target.
Count the bytes received and refuse to complete a successful read whose
count does not match, at the two NVME_TCP_F_DATA_SUCCESS paths and in
nvme_tcp_process_nvme_cqe(). The success test shifts req->status right
by one, because the driver keeps the wire value there and shifts it on
completion, so the check must see what the completion path will see.
Only REQ_OP_READ is checked, because there the length comes from the
sectors the request covers; a passthrough command is built by its
submitter, which picks both command and buffer, so the kernel has
nothing to compare against.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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