In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ALSA: caiaq: fix stack out-of-bounds read in init_card
The loop creates a whitespace-stripped copy of the card shortname
where len < sizeof(card->id) is used for the bounds check. Since
sizeof(card->id) is 16 and the local id buffer is also 16 bytes,
writing 16 non-space characters fills the entire buffer,
overwriting the terminating nullbyte.
When this non-null-terminated string is later passed to
snd_card_set_id() -> copy_valid_id_string(), the function scans
forward with while (*nid && ...) and reads past the end of the
stack buffer, reading the contents of the stack.
A USB device with a product name containing many non-ASCII, non-space
characters (e.g. multibyte UTF-8) will reliably trigger this as follows:
BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in copy_valid_id_string
sound/core/init.c:696 [inline]
BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in snd_card_set_id_no_lock+0x698/0x74c
sound/core/init.c:718
The off-by-one has been present since commit bafeee5b1f8d ("ALSA:
snd_usb_caiaq: give better shortname") from June 2009 (v2.6.31-rc1),
which first introduced this whitespace-stripping loop. The original
code never accounted for the null terminator when bounding the copy.
Fix this by changing the loop bound to sizeof(card->id) - 1,
ensuring at least one byte remains as the null terminator.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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