In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: virtio_bt: validate rx pkt_type header length
virtbt_rx_handle() reads the leading pkt_type byte from the RX skb
and forwards the remainder to hci_recv_frame() for every
event/ACL/SCO/ISO type, without checking that the remaining payload
is at least the fixed HCI header for that type.
After the preceding patch bounds the backend-supplied used.len to
[1, VIRTBT_RX_BUF_SIZE], a one-byte completion still reaches
hci_recv_frame() with skb->len already pulled to 0. If the byte
happened to be HCI_ACLDATA_PKT, the ACL-vs-ISO classification
fast-path in hci_dev_classify_pkt_type() dereferences
hci_acl_hdr(skb)->handle whenever the HCI device has an active
CIS_LINK, BIS_LINK, or PA_LINK connection, reading two bytes of
uninitialized RX-buffer data. The same hazard exists for every
packet type the driver accepts because none of the switch cases in
virtbt_rx_handle() check skb->len against the per-type minimum HCI
header size before handing the frame to the core.
After stripping pkt_type, require skb->len to cover the fixed
header size for the selected type (event 2, ACL 4, SCO 3, ISO 4)
before calling hci_recv_frame(); drop ratelimited otherwise.
Unknown pkt_type values still take the original kfree_skb() default
path.
Use bt_dev_err_ratelimited() because both the length and pkt_type
values come from an untrusted backend that can otherwise flood the
kernel log.
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: 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