In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
can: gw: fix OOB heap access in cgw_csum_crc8_rel()
cgw_csum_crc8_rel() correctly computes bounds-safe indices via calc_idx():
int from = calc_idx(crc8->from_idx, cf->len);
int to = calc_idx(crc8->to_idx, cf->len);
int res = calc_idx(crc8->result_idx, cf->len);
if (from < 0 || to < 0 || res < 0)
return;
However, the loop and the result write then use the raw s8 fields directly
instead of the computed variables:
for (i = crc8->from_idx; ...) /* BUG: raw negative index */
cf->data[crc8->result_idx] = ...; /* BUG: raw negative index */
With from_idx = to_idx = result_idx = -64 on a 64-byte CAN FD frame,
calc_idx(-64, 64) = 0 so the guard passes, but the loop iterates with
i = -64, reading cf->data[-64], and the write goes to cf->data[-64].
This write might end up to 56 (7.0-rc) or 40 (<= 6.19) bytes before the
start of the canfd_frame on the heap.
The companion function cgw_csum_xor_rel() uses from/to/res
correctly throughout; fix cgw_csum_crc8_rel() to match.
Confirmed with KASAN on linux-7.0-rc2:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in cgw_csum_crc8_rel+0x515/0x5b0
Read of size 1 at addr ffff8880076619c8 by task poc_cgw_oob/62
To configure the can-gw crc8 checksums CAP_NET_ADMIN is needed.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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 or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).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 or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
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