In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: sync_linked_regs() must preserve subreg_def
Range propagation must not affect subreg_def marks, otherwise the
following example is rewritten by verifier incorrectly when
BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag is set:
0: call bpf_ktime_get_ns call bpf_ktime_get_ns
1: r0 &= 0x7fffffff after verifier r0 &= 0x7fffffff
2: w1 = w0 rewrites w1 = w0
3: if w0 < 10 goto +0 --------------> r11 = 0x2f5674a6 (r)
4: r1 >>= 32 r11 <<= 32 (r)
5: r0 = r1 r1 |= r11 (r)
6: exit; if w0 < 0xa goto pc+0
r1 >>= 32
r0 = r1
exit
(or zero extension of w1 at (2) is missing for architectures that
require zero extension for upper register half).
The following happens w/o this patch:
- r0 is marked as not a subreg at (0);
- w1 is marked as subreg at (2);
- w1 subreg_def is overridden at (3) by copy_register_state();
- w1 is read at (5) but mark_insn_zext() does not mark (2)
for zero extension, because w1 subreg_def is not set;
- because of BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag verifier inserts random
value for hi32 bits of (2) (marked (r));
- this random value is read at (5).
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 2026-11-07). 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