EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 4.6Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
The Nuvoton NuMaker HSUSBD USB device-controller driver (drivers/usb/udc/udc_numaker.c) armed the control Data IN stage unconditionally (base->CEPTXCNT = len in numaker_hsusbd_ep_trigger). Because the HSUSBD hardware cannot disarm a control Data IN already armed for a previous transfer, a USB host that cancels an in-flight control transfer (timeout) and then issues a new SETUP packet can drive the driver out of sync: stale data may be transmitted in the new transfer and the control endpoint can become permanently stuck NAK'ing every subsequent control transfer.
A malicious or buggy host (physical/adjacent attacker driving the bus) can repeatedly cancel-and-re-SETUP to wedge the device's USB control endpoint, denying service to the device's USB function (the device stops enumerating/responding on the control pipe) until a USB reset or re-plug. The flaw is an availability-only denial of service; the FIFO copy loops (bounded by net_buf length and the hardware BUFFULL flag) and the net_buf lifecycle are independent of the arming desync, so there is no out-of-bounds access, use-after-free, or information leak.
The fix monitors the IN-token and new-SETUP events (k_event) and only arms control Data IN when an IN token is present and no new SETUP has arrived, cancelling the current transfer on a new SETUP. Affects boards using the Nuvoton NuMaker HSUSBD controller (CONFIG_UDC_NUMAKER with DT_HAS_NUVOTON_NUMAKER_HSUSBD_ENABLED); shipped in v4.4.0.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
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