In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: fix UAF in l2cap_sock_cleanup_listen() vs l2cap_conn_del()
bt_accept_dequeue() unlinks a not-yet-accepted child from the parent
accept queue and release_sock()s it before returning, so the returned
sk has no caller reference and is unlocked.
l2cap_sock_cleanup_listen() walks these children on listening-socket
close. A concurrent HCI disconnect drives hci_rx_work ->
l2cap_conn_del() which runs l2cap_chan_del() + l2cap_sock_kill() and
frees the child sk and its l2cap_chan; cleanup_listen() then uses both:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in l2cap_sock_kill
l2cap_sock_kill / l2cap_sock_cleanup_listen / __x64_sys_close
Freed by: l2cap_conn_del -> l2cap_sock_close_cb -> l2cap_sock_kill
This is distinct from the two fixes already in this area: commit
e83f5e24da741 ("Bluetooth: serialize accept_q access") serialises the
accept_q list/poll and takes temporary refs inside bt_accept_dequeue(),
and CVE-2025-39860 serialises the userspace close()/accept() race by
calling cleanup_listen() under lock_sock() in l2cap_sock_release().
Neither covers l2cap_conn_del() running from hci_rx_work, so this UAF
still reproduces on current bluetooth/master.
Take the reference at the source: bt_accept_dequeue() does sock_hold()
while sk is still locked, before release_sock(); callers sock_put().
cleanup_listen() pins the chan with l2cap_chan_hold_unless_zero() under
a brief child sk lock (serialising vs l2cap_sock_teardown_cb()), drops
it before l2cap_chan_lock(), and skips a duplicate l2cap_sock_kill() on
SOCK_DEAD. conn->lock is not taken here: cleanup_listen() runs under
the parent sk lock and that would invert
conn->lock -> chan->lock -> sk_lock (lockdep).
KASAN/SMP: an unprivileged listen/close vs HCI-disconnect race produced
12 use-after-free reports per run before this change; 0, and no lockdep
report, over 1600+ raced iterations after it on bluetooth/master.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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