EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: No code on recordExposed 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 userspace syscall verifiers z_vrfy_zsock_sendmsg() and z_vrfy_zsock_recvmsg() in subsys/net/lib/sockets/sockets.c snapshot the caller-supplied struct net_msghdr into a kernel-side copy with k_usermode_from_copy(), but then re-read the still-live user struct for subsequent decisions. The kernel iovec shadow buffer is sized from one read of msg->msg_iovlen, while the population loop is bounded by a second, live read of the same field.
Because msg points into ordinary user memory, a cooperating second thread in the same memory domain can inflate msg->msg_iovlen in the window between the sizing read and the loop test (a classic double-fetch / TOCTOU). The population loop then iterates past the number of net_iovec slots actually allocated, writing attacker-influenced iov_base/iov_len values beyond the end of the kernel-heap shadow buffer. The recvmsg verifier has the same defect on both its inbound and result write-back loops.
The code is reachable from an unprivileged user thread whenever CONFIG_USERSPACE is enabled and the zsock_sendmsg/zsock_recvmsg syscalls are available. A successful race corrupts kernel-managed heap memory across the user-to-kernel privilege boundary, yielding a local privilege-escalation primitive or, at minimum, a kernel-fault denial of service. The fix copies the header once and derives every size, bound, and gate from the snapshot, copying each iovec entry atomically so its base and length can no longer be raced apart.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA 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: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
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 at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
Exploitation public PoC (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