The kernel queue helper z_queue_node_peek() in kernel/queue.c dereferences a node taken from a queue's data_q list, reading the node's flag byte and, for items enqueued via k_queue_alloc_append/alloc_prepend, the data pointer of an internally allocated alloc_node struct. The implementations of z_impl_k_queue_peek_head() and z_impl_k_queue_peek_tail() performed this read-and-dereference without holding the queue's spinlock, while every other accessor of the same list — including k_queue_get(), which unlinks a node and k_free()s its backing alloc_node — operates under that lock.
Because peek was unsynchronized, a concurrent k_queue_get() on the same queue (on an SMP build, or under preemption/ISR concurrency) can free the node between the moment peek obtains the node pointer and the moment it dereferences it. The peek then reads flag bits and a data pointer out of freed, potentially re-allocated heap memory and returns a stale or dangling pointer to its caller. k_fifo and k_lifo are thin wrappers over k_queue, so this affects buffer queues used throughout the net_buf, Bluetooth, USB, and networking subsystems; the peek operations are also system calls reachable from CONFIG_USERSPACE threads.
The consequences are a use-after-free read that can leak stale heap contents (one pointer word) and, when the returned dangling pointer is subsequently consumed as a live buffer, a dereference that can crash the system or corrupt memory. Exploitation requires winning a small race window with local access (e.g. a userspace process racing k_queue_peek_* against k_queue_get on a shared queue, or two CPUs), so practical impact is bounded and of low severity.
The fix wraps both peek implementations with k_spin_lock/k_spin_unlock on the queue lock, making the read-and-dereference atomic with respect to the concurrent unlink-and-free and bringing peek into line with the rest of the queue's locking discipline.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (3.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 3.6 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 3.6 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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