In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
parport: Fix race between port and client registration
The parport subsystem registers port devices before they are fully
initialised, resulting in a race condition where client drivers such
as lp can attach to ports that are not completely initialised or even
being torn down.
When the port and client drivers are built as modules and loaded
around the same time during boot, this occasionally results in a
crash. I was able to make this happen reliably in a VM with a
PC-style parallel port by patching parport_pc to fail probing:
> --- a/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c
> +++ b/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c
> @@ -2069,7 +2069,7 @@ static struct parport *__parport_pc_probe_port(unsigned long int base,
> if (!p)
> goto out3;
>
> - base_res = request_region(base, 3, p->name);
> + base_res = NULL;
> if (!base_res)
> goto out4;
>
and then running:
while true; do
modprobe lp & modprobe parport_pc
wait
rmmod lp parport_pc
done
for a few seconds.
In the long term I think port registration should be changed to put
the call to device_add() inside parport_announce_port(), but since the
latter currently cannot fail this will require changing all port
drivers.
For now, add a flag to indicate whether a port has been "announced"
and only try to attach client drivers to ports when the flag is set.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-19). 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