In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
lib/crypto: mpi: Fix integer underflow in mpi_read_raw_from_sgl()
Yiming reports an integer underflow in mpi_read_raw_from_sgl() when
subtracting "lzeros" from the unsigned "nbytes".
For this to happen, the scatterlist "sgl" needs to occupy more bytes
than the "nbytes" parameter and the first "nbytes + 1" bytes of the
scatterlist must be zero. Under these conditions, the while loop
iterating over the scatterlist will count more zeroes than "nbytes",
subtract the number of zeroes from "nbytes" and cause the underflow.
When commit 2d4d1eea540b ("lib/mpi: Add mpi sgl helpers") originally
introduced the bug, it couldn't be triggered because all callers of
mpi_read_raw_from_sgl() passed a scatterlist whose length was equal to
"nbytes".
However since commit 63ba4d67594a ("KEYS: asymmetric: Use new crypto
interface without scatterlists"), the underflow can now actually be
triggered. When invoking a KEYCTL_PKEY_ENCRYPT system call with a
larger "out_len" than "in_len" and filling the "in" buffer with zeroes,
crypto_akcipher_sync_prep() will create an all-zero scatterlist used for
both the "src" and "dst" member of struct akcipher_request and thereby
fulfil the conditions to trigger the bug:
sys_keyctl()
keyctl_pkey_e_d_s()
asymmetric_key_eds_op()
software_key_eds_op()
crypto_akcipher_sync_encrypt()
crypto_akcipher_sync_prep()
crypto_akcipher_encrypt()
rsa_enc()
mpi_read_raw_from_sgl()
To the user this will be visible as a DoS as the kernel spins forever,
causing soft lockup splats as a side effect.
Fix it.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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