In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: set dummy blocksize to read boot_block when mounting
When mounting, sb->s_blocksize is used to read the boot_block without
being defined or validated. Set a dummy blocksize before attempting to
read the boot_block.
The issue can be triggered with the following syz reproducer:
mkdirat(0xffffffffffffff9c, &(0x7f0000000080)='./file1\x00', 0x0)
r4 = openat$nullb(0xffffffffffffff9c, &(0x7f0000000040), 0x121403, 0x0)
ioctl$FS_IOC_SETFLAGS(r4, 0x40081271, &(0x7f0000000980)=0x4000)
mount(&(0x7f0000000140)=@nullb, &(0x7f0000000040)='./cgroup\x00',
&(0x7f0000000000)='ntfs3\x00', 0x2208004, 0x0)
syz_clone(0x88200200, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0)
Here, the ioctl sets the bdev block size to 16384. During mount,
get_tree_bdev_flags() calls sb_set_blocksize(sb, block_size(bdev)),
but since block_size(bdev) > PAGE_SIZE, sb_set_blocksize() leaves
sb->s_blocksize at zero.
Later, ntfs_init_from_boot() attempts to read the boot_block while
sb->s_blocksize is still zero, which triggers the bug.
[[email protected]: changed comment style, added
return value handling]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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