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: 0.1%CVSS: 5.8Exploit: 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).
A use-after-free exists in the Zephyr second-generation work queue (kernel/work.c) in the handling of delayable work timeouts. When a delayable work item's timeout has been dequeued and its handler work_timeout() is in flight (blocked acquiring the work-queue spinlock), a concurrent cancellation does not wait for that handler to finish. In unschedule_locked() the pre-fix code called z_abort_timeout(), which for an already-announcing record returns -EINVAL without removing it; cancel_async_locked() then observes the work as idle, so even k_work_cancel_delayable_sync() and k_work_flush_delayable() return without blocking on the in-flight handler.
Because those are the APIs the kernel header documents as the safe way to cancel before freeing a k_work_delayable, a caller that frees the object immediately after a successful sync cancel can race the still-pending handler. work_timeout() subsequently dereferences the freed record: it reads to->dticks via z_is_timeout_handler_canceled() and, if the freed slot has been reused so the bail check fails, performs a read-modify-write of wp->flags (K_WORK_DELAYED_BIT) and submits work against a stale dw->queue pointer — a use-after-free read and write.
The k_work API is kernel-mode only (no __syscall entry point), so this is a kernel-internal concurrency defect rather than a userspace privilege escalation. Triggering it requires an SMP build and a subsystem that schedules and then frees (or reschedules) a delayable work item in the narrow window while its timeout is announcing; an attacker able to influence the timing of such teardown (for example via connection churn driving subsystem timers) has a plausible but probabilistic path. The impact is kernel memory corruption or crash (denial of service).
The fix makes unschedule_locked() wait, by spinning on z_try_abort_timeout() returning -EAGAIN while releasing and re-acquiring the work spinlock, until any in-flight handler completes before returning, and switches work_timeout() to atomic K_WORK_DELAYED_BIT ownership. This closes both the free-then-handler use-after-free and the related reschedule early-fire race.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.8 MEDIUMCVSS-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