EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: 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).
On Xtensa SoCs built with CONFIG_XTENSA_MPU and CONFIG_USERSPACE, arch_buffer_validate() in arch/xtensa/core/mpu.c — the architecture hook that verifies a user-mode-supplied buffer is accessible to the calling user thread with the requested permission — defaulted its return value to 0 (access permitted) and only set a denial result inside its per-MPU-region probe loop. When the rounded extent of the buffer wraps the 32-bit address space (size + alignment offset near SIZE_MAX, or ROUND_UP(size + offset) overflowing to 0), the loop executes zero iterations and the function returns 0 = permitted without probing any MPU region.
The syscall-layer pre-checks (K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_SIZE_CHECK / Z_DETECT_POINTER_OVERFLOW) only catch a raw addr+size wrap and do not cover the ROUND_UP-induced wrap, and the string path (arch_user_string_nlen -> arch_buffer_validate) has no syscall-layer guard at all.
An unprivileged user-mode thread can therefore pass a crafted (addr, size) to any syscall that validates user buffers via k_usermode_from_copy/to_copy or k_usermode_string_copy and have validation succeed for memory it must not access; the kernel then reads from (disclosure) or, with write=1, writes to (corruption) attacker-chosen kernel or other-partition memory on the thread's behalf, enabling information disclosure, memory corruption, privilege escalation, and denial of service.
Affected from v3.7.0 (when Xtensa MPU userspace support was added) through v4.4.0. The fix changes the default to -EINVAL (deny by default), adds an explicit size_add_overflow check, and sets the success value only after the full range has been validated.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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 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.
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