In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
crypto: eip93 - fix hmac setkey algo selection
eip93_hmac_setkey() allocates a temporary ahash transform for
computing HMAC ipad/opad key material. The allocation uses the
driver-specific cra_driver_name (e.g. "sha256-eip93") but passes
CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC as the mask, which excludes async algorithms.
Since the EIP93 hash algorithms are the only ones registered
under those driver names and they are inherently async, the
lookup is self-contradictory and always fails with -ENOENT.
When called from the AEAD setkey path, this failure leaves the
SA record partially initialized with zeroed digest fields. A
subsequent crypto operation then dereferences a NULL pointer in
the request context, resulting in a kernel panic:
pc : eip93_aead_handle_result+0xc8c/0x1240 [crypto_hw_eip93]
lr : eip93_aead_handle_result+0xbec/0x1240 [crypto_hw_eip93]
sp : ffffffc082feb820
x29: ffffffc082feb820 x28: ffffff8011043980 x27: 0000000000000000
x26: 0000000000000000 x25: ffffffc078da0bc8 x24: 0000000091043980
x23: ffffff8004d59e50 x22: ffffff8004d59410 x21: ffffff8004d593c0
x20: ffffff8004d593c0 x19: ffffff8004d4f300 x18: 0000000000000000
x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000007fda7aa498
x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
x11: 0000000000000000 x10: fffffffff8127a80 x9 : 0000000000000000
x8 : ffffff8004d4f380 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000000000000003f
x5 : 0000000000000040 x4 : 0000000000000008 x3 : 0000000000000009
x2 : 0000000000000008 x1 : 0000000028000003 x0 : ffffff8004d388c0
Code: 910142b6 f94012e0 f9002aa0 f90006d3 (f9400740)
The reported symbol eip93_aead_handle_result+0xc8c is a
resolution artifact from static functions being merged under
the nearest exported symbol. Decoding the faulting sequence:
910142b6 ADD X22, X21, #0x50
f94012e0 LDR X0, [X23, #0x20]
f9002aa0 STR X0, [X21, #0x50]
f90006d3 STR X19, [X22, #0x8]
f9400740 LDR X0, [X26, #0x8]
The faulting LDR at [X26, #0x8] is loading ctx->flags
(offset 8 in eip93_hash_ctx), where ctx has been resolved
to NULL from a partially initialized or unreachable
transform context following the failed setkey.
Fix this by dropping the CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC mask from the
crypto_alloc_ahash() call. The code already handles async
completion correctly via crypto_wait_req(), so there is no
requirement to restrict the lookup to synchronous algorithms.
Note that hashing a single 64-byte block through the hardware
is likely slower than doing it in software due to the DMA
round-trip overhead, but offloading it may still spare CPU
cycles on the slower embedded cores where this IP is found.
[Detailed investigation report of this bug]
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
- 0.2% 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