In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: prevent corruption in shrinking truncate
I believe there are some issues introduced by commit 31651c607151
("hfsplus: avoid deadlock on file truncation")
HFS+ has extent records which always contains 8 extents. In case the
first extent record in catalog file gets full, new ones are allocated from
extents overflow file.
In case shrinking truncate happens to middle of an extent record which
locates in extents overflow file, the logic in hfsplus_file_truncate() was
changed so that call to hfs_brec_remove() is not guarded any more.
Right action would be just freeing the extents that exceed the new size
inside extent record by calling hfsplus_free_extents(), and then check if
the whole extent record should be removed. However since the guard
(blk_cnt > start) is now after the call to hfs_brec_remove(), this has
unfortunate effect that the last matching extent record is removed
unconditionally.
To reproduce this issue, create a file which has at least 10 extents, and
then perform shrinking truncate into middle of the last extent record, so
that the number of remaining extents is not under or divisible by 8. This
causes the last extent record (8 extents) to be removed totally instead of
truncating into middle of it. Thus this causes corruption, and lost data.
Fix for this is simply checking if the new truncated end is below the
start of this extent record, making it safe to remove the full extent
record. However call to hfs_brec_remove() can't be moved to it's previous
place since we're dropping ->tree_lock and it can cause a race condition
and the cached info being invalidated possibly corrupting the node data.
Another issue is related to this one. When entering into the block
(blk_cnt > start) we are not holding the ->tree_lock. We break out from
the loop not holding the lock, but hfs_find_exit() does unlock it. Not
sure if it's possible for someone else to take the lock under our feet,
but it can cause hard to debug errors and premature unlocking. Even if
there's no real risk of it, the locking should still always be kept in
balance. Thus taking the lock now just before the check.
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 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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