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: 5.5Exploit: 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 CONFIG_USERSPACE verification handler for the k_thread_name_copy() system call (z_vrfy_k_thread_name_copy() in kernel/thread.c) calls k_object_find() on the caller-supplied thread pointer and then dereferences the returned struct k_object without checking it for NULL. k_object_find() returns NULL whenever the supplied pointer is not a registered (static or dynamic) kernel object.
The pre-fix guard tested thread == NULL instead of ko == NULL, so an unprivileged user-mode thread that invokes k_thread_name_copy() with any non-NULL but unregistered pointer (e.g. an arbitrary address) passes the NULL test, after which the verifier reads ko->type through a NULL pointer.
Because the syscall verifier runs in supervisor mode, this NULL dereference is a kernel-mode fault that halts or reboots the system, allowing untrusted user code to crash the kernel across the userspace security boundary (denial of service). The marshaller passes the thread argument to the verifier without any prior K_SYSCALL_OBJ validation, so the bad pointer reaches the defect directly.
The flaw affects builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE and CONFIG_THREAD_NAME enabled and has been present since the special-case lookup was introduced around v2.0.0; it is present in v4.4.0 and earlier. The fix changes the guard to check the k_object_find() return value (ko == NULL) before dereferencing it.
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