In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
spi: microchip-core-qspi: control built-in cs manually
The coreQSPI IP supports only a single chip select, which is
automagically operated by the hardware - set low when the transmit
buffer first gets written to and set high when the number of bytes
written to the TOTALBYTES field of the FRAMES register have been sent on
the bus. Additional devices must use GPIOs for their chip selects.
It was reported to me that if there are two devices attached to this
QSPI controller that the in-built chip select is set low while linux
tries to access the device attached to the GPIO.
This went undetected as the boards that connected multiple devices to
the SPI controller all exclusively used GPIOs for chip selects, not
relying on the built-in chip select at all. It turns out that this was
because the built-in chip select, when controlled automagically, is set
low when active and high when inactive, thereby ruling out its use for
active-high devices or devices that need to transmit with the chip
select disabled.
Modify the driver so that it controls chip select directly, retaining
the behaviour for mem_ops of setting the chip select active for the
entire duration of the transfer in the exec_op callback. For regular
transfers, implement the set_cs callback for the core to use.
As part of this, the existing setup callback, mchp_coreqspi_setup_op(),
is removed. Modifying the CLKIDLE field is not safe to do during
operation when there are multiple devices, so this code is removed
entirely. Setting the MASTER and ENABLE fields is something that can be
done once at probe, it doesn't need to be re-run for each device.
Instead the new setup callback sets the built-in chip select to its
inactive state for active-low devices, as the reset value of the chip
select in software controlled mode is low.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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