In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: fix uninit-value by validating catalog record size
Syzbot reported a KMSAN uninit-value issue in hfsplus_strcasecmp(). The
root cause is that hfs_brec_read() doesn't validate that the on-disk
record size matches the expected size for the record type being read.
When mounting a corrupted filesystem, hfs_brec_read() may read less data
than expected. For example, when reading a catalog thread record, the
debug output showed:
HFSPLUS_BREC_READ: rec_len=520, fd->entrylength=26
HFSPLUS_BREC_READ: WARNING - entrylength (26) < rec_len (520) - PARTIAL READ!
hfs_brec_read() only validates that entrylength is not greater than the
buffer size, but doesn't check if it's less than expected. It successfully
reads 26 bytes into a 520-byte structure and returns success, leaving 494
bytes uninitialized.
This uninitialized data in tmp.thread.nodeName then gets copied by
hfsplus_cat_build_key_uni() and used by hfsplus_strcasecmp(), triggering
the KMSAN warning when the uninitialized bytes are used as array indices
in case_fold().
Fix by introducing hfsplus_brec_read_cat() wrapper that:
- Calls hfs_brec_read() to read the data
- Validates the record size based on the type field:
- Fixed size for folder and file records
- Variable size for thread records (depends on string length)
- Returns -EIO if size doesn't match expected
For thread records, check against HFSPLUS_MIN_THREAD_SZ before reading
nodeName.length to avoid reading uninitialized data at call sites that
don't zero-initialize the entry structure.
Also initialize the tmp variable in hfsplus_find_cat() as defensive
programming to ensure no uninitialized data even if validation is
bypassed.
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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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