In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
i2c: stub: Reject I2C block transfers with invalid length
The I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case in stub_xfer() uses data->block[0]
as the transfer length. The existing check only clamps it to avoid
overrunning the chip->words[256] register array, but does not validate
it against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX (32), which is the limit of the union
i2c_smbus_data.block buffer (34 bytes total). The driver is a
development/test tool (CONFIG_I2C_STUB=m, not built by default)
that must be loaded with a chip_addr= parameter.
A local user with access to /dev/i2c-* can issue an I2C_SMBUS ioctl
with I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA and data->block[0] > 32, causing
stub_xfer() to read or write past the end of the union
i2c_smbus_data.block buffer:
BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223)
Read of size 1 at addr ffff88800abcfd92 by task exploit/81
Call Trace:
stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223)
__i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:593)
i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:536)
i2cdev_ioctl_smbus (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:391)
i2cdev_ioctl (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:478)
__x64_sys_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:583)
do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94)
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130)
The bug exists because i2c-stub implements .smbus_xfer directly,
bypassing the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX validation in
i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(). The I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same
function correctly validates against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX, but the
I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case does not.
Fix by rejecting transfers with data->block[0] == 0 or
data->block[0] > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX with -EINVAL, consistent with
both the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same function and the
I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA validation in i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated().
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 2026-10-27). 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