In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rust_binder: check ownership before using vma
When installing missing pages (or zapping them), Rust Binder will look
up the vma in the mm by address, and then call vm_insert_page (or
zap_page_range_single). However, if the vma is closed and replaced with
a different vma at the same address, this can lead to Rust Binder
installing pages into the wrong vma.
By installing the page into a writable vma, it becomes possible to write
to your own binder pages, which are normally read-only. Although you're
not supposed to be able to write to those pages, the intent behind the
design of Rust Binder is that even if you get that ability, it should not
lead to anything bad. Unfortunately, due to another bug, that is not the
case.
To fix this, store a pointer in vm_private_data and check that the vma
returned by vma_lookup() has the right vm_ops and vm_private_data before
trying to use the vma. This should ensure that Rust Binder will refuse
to interact with any other VMA. The plan is to introduce more vma
abstractions to avoid this unsafe access to vm_ops and vm_private_data,
but for now let's start with the simplest possible fix.
C Binder performs the same check in a slightly different way: it
provides a vm_ops->close that sets a boolean to true, then checks that
boolean after calling vma_lookup(), but this is more fragile
than the solution in this patch. (We probably still want to do both, but
the vm_ops->close callback will be added later as part of the follow-up
vma API changes.)
It's still possible to remap the vma so that pages appear in the right
vma, but at the wrong offset, but this is a separate issue and will be
fixed when Rust Binder gets a vm_ops->close callback.
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 2026-11-05). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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