In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
isofs: validate block number from NFS file handle in isofs_export_iget
isofs_fh_to_dentry() and isofs_fh_to_parent() pass an attacker-
controlled block number (ifid->block or ifid->parent_block) from
the NFS file handle to isofs_export_iget(), which only rejects
block == 0 before calling isofs_iget() and ultimately sb_bread().
A crafted file handle with fh_len sufficient to pass the check
added by commit 0405d4b63d08 ("isofs: Prevent the use of too small
fid") can still drive the server to read any in-range block on the
backing device as if it were an iso_directory_record. That earlier
fix was assigned CVE-2025-37780.
sb_bread() on an out-of-range block returns NULL cleanly via the
EIO path, so there is no memory-safety violation. For in-range
reads of adjacent-partition data on the same block device, the
unrelated bytes end up in iso_inode_info fields that reach the NFS
client as dentry metadata. The deployment surface (isofs exported
over NFS from loop-mounted images) is narrow and requires an
authenticated NFS peer, but the malformed-file-handle class is
reportable as hardening next to the existing CVE-2025-37780 fix.
Reject block >= ISOFS_SB(sb)->s_nzones in isofs_export_iget() so
the check covers both isofs_fh_to_dentry() and isofs_fh_to_parent()
call sites with a single line.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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