In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ksmbd: add a WRITE_DAC/WRITE_OWNER check to SMB2 SET_INFO SECURITY
commit cc57232cae23 ("ksmbd: fix FSCTL permission bypass by adding a
permission check for FSCTL_SET_SPARSE") added a fp->daccess gate to
fsctl_set_sparse and noted that "similar handle-level checks exist in other
functions but are missing here." The SMB2 SET_INFO SECURITY arm is one of
the missing ones, and the most security-relevant: smb2_set_info_sec() calls
set_info_sec() with no per-handle access check.
set_info_sec() (fs/smb/server/smbacl.c) re-permissions the file: it
rewrites owner/group/mode via notify_change(), rewrites the POSIX ACL via
set_posix_acl(), and on KSMBD_SHARE_FLAG_ACL_XATTR shares removes and
rewrites the Windows security descriptor via ksmbd_vfs_set_sd_xattr().
Every other persistent-mutation arm of the sibling handler
smb2_set_info_file() checks fp->daccess first (FILE_WRITE_DATA /
FILE_DELETE / FILE_WRITE_EA / FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES); the SECURITY arm —
which mutates the access control itself — is the only one with no gate.
A client can therefore open a handle with FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES only (no
FILE_WRITE_DAC / FILE_WRITE_OWNER) and use SMB2_SET_INFO with InfoType
SMB2_O_INFO_SECURITY to rewrite the file's DACL and owner, granting itself
access the handle's daccess never carried. Unlike the FSCTL data arms this
is a metadata/xattr operation, so there is no FMODE_WRITE VFS backstop —
the missing fp->daccess check is the entire gate.
Setting a security descriptor is the WRITE_DAC / WRITE_OWNER operation, so
require at least one of those on the handle before re-permissioning the
file. -EACCES is mapped to STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED by smb2_set_info().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% 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 (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