In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: xhci: Don't skip on Stopped - Length Invalid
Up until commit d56b0b2ab142 ("usb: xhci: ensure skipped isoc TDs are
returned when isoc ring is stopped") in v6.11, the driver didn't skip
missed isochronous TDs when handling Stoppend and Stopped - Length
Invalid events. Instead, it erroneously cleared the skip flag, which
would cause the ring to get stuck, as future events won't match the
missed TD which is never removed from the queue until it's cancelled.
This buggy logic seems to have been in place substantially unchanged
since the 3.x series over 10 years ago, which probably speaks first
and foremost about relative rarity of this case in normal usage, but
by the spec I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible.
After d56b0b2ab142, TDs are immediately skipped when handling those
Stopped events. This poses a potential problem in case of Stopped -
Length Invalid, which occurs either on completed TDs (likely already
given back) or Link and No-Op TRBs. Such event won't be recognized
as matching any TD (unless it's the rare Link TRB inside a TD) and
will result in skipping all pending TDs, giving them back possibly
before they are done, risking isoc data loss and maybe UAF by HW.
As a compromise, don't skip and don't clear the skip flag on this
kind of event. Then the next event will skip missed TDs. A downside
of not handling Stopped - Length Invalid on a Link inside a TD is
that if the TD is cancelled, its actual length will not be updated
to account for TRBs (silently) completed before the TD was stopped.
I had no luck producing this sequence of completion events so there
is no compelling demonstration of any resulting disaster. It may be
a very rare, obscure condition. The sole motivation for this patch
is that if such unlikely event does occur, I'd rather risk reporting
a cancelled partially done isoc frame as empty than gamble with UAF.
This will be fixed more properly by looking at Stopped event's TRB
pointer when making skipping decisions, but such rework is unlikely
to be backported to v6.12, which will stay around for a few years.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-11-02). 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