In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: SCO: fix race conditions in sco_sock_connect()
sco_sock_connect() checks sk_state and sk_type without holding
the socket lock. Two concurrent connect() syscalls on the same
socket can both pass the check and enter sco_connect(), leading
to use-after-free.
The buggy scenario involves three participants and was confirmed
with additional logging instrumentation:
Thread A (connect): HCI disconnect: Thread B (connect):
sco_sock_connect(sk) sco_sock_connect(sk)
sk_state==BT_OPEN sk_state==BT_OPEN
(pass, no lock) (pass, no lock)
sco_connect(sk): sco_connect(sk):
hci_dev_lock hci_dev_lock
hci_connect_sco <- blocked
-> hcon1
sco_conn_add->conn1
lock_sock(sk)
sco_chan_add:
conn1->sk = sk
sk->conn = conn1
sk_state=BT_CONNECT
release_sock
hci_dev_unlock
hci_dev_lock
sco_conn_del:
lock_sock(sk)
sco_chan_del:
sk->conn=NULL
conn1->sk=NULL
sk_state=
BT_CLOSED
SOCK_ZAPPED
release_sock
hci_dev_unlock
(unblocked)
hci_connect_sco
-> hcon2
sco_conn_add
-> conn2
lock_sock(sk)
sco_chan_add:
sk->conn=conn2
sk_state=
BT_CONNECT
// zombie sk!
release_sock
hci_dev_unlock
Thread B revives a BT_CLOSED + SOCK_ZAPPED socket back to
BT_CONNECT. Subsequent cleanup triggers double sock_put() and
use-after-free. Meanwhile conn1 is leaked as it was orphaned
when sco_conn_del() cleared the association.
Fix this by:
- Moving lock_sock() before the sk_state/sk_type checks in
sco_sock_connect() to serialize concurrent connect attempts
- Fixing the sk_type != SOCK_SEQPACKET check to actually
return the error instead of just assigning it
- Adding a state re-check in sco_connect() after lock_sock()
to catch state changes during the window between the locks
- Adding sco_pi(sk)->conn check in sco_chan_add() to prevent
double-attach of a socket to multiple connections
- Adding hci_conn_drop() on sco_chan_add failure to prevent
HCI connection leaks
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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- <0.1% 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