In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: virtio_bt: clamp rx length before skb_put
virtbt_rx_work() calls skb_put(skb, len) where len comes directly
from virtqueue_get_buf() with no validation against the buffer we
posted to the device. The RX skb is allocated in virtbt_add_inbuf()
and exposed to virtio as exactly 1000 bytes via sg_init_one().
Checking len against skb_tailroom(skb) is not sufficient because
alloc_skb() can leave more tailroom than the 1000 bytes actually
handed to the device. A malicious or buggy backend can therefore
report used.len between 1001 and skb_tailroom(skb), causing skb_put()
to include uninitialized kernel heap bytes that were never written by
the device.
The same path also accepts len == 0, in which case skb_put(skb, 0)
leaves the skb empty but virtbt_rx_handle() still reads the pkt_type
byte from skb->data, consuming uninitialized memory.
Define VIRTBT_RX_BUF_SIZE once and reuse it in alloc_skb() and
sg_init_one(), and gate virtbt_rx_work() on that same constant so
the bound checked matches the buffer actually exposed to the device.
Reject used.len == 0 in the same gate so an empty completion can
no longer reach virtbt_rx_handle().
Use bt_dev_err_ratelimited() because the length value comes from an
untrusted backend that can otherwise flood the kernel log.
Same class of bug as commit c04db81cd028 ("net/9p: Fix buffer
overflow in USB transport layer"), which hardened the USB 9p
transport against unchecked device-reported length.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.7 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 2026-10-17). 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