In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs/ntfs3: bound NTFS_DE view.data_off in UpdateRecordData{Root,Allocation}
In do_action()'s UpdateRecordDataRoot (fslog.c:3489) and
UpdateRecordDataAllocation (fslog.c:3697) cases, the memmove
destination is Add2Ptr(e, le16_to_cpu(e->view.data_off)),
where e->view.data_off comes from an on-disk NTFS_DE inside
an INDEX_ROOT or INDEX_BUFFER. Neither case validates
view.data_off + dlen against e->size; the existing
check_if_index_root / check_if_alloc_index helpers walk the
entry chain and validate the entry's offset, but not its
internal view fields.
The neighbouring read sites (e.g., fs/ntfs3/index.c when
iterating view entries) check view.data_off + view.data_size
<= e->size. Apply the same bound at the two memmove sites.
Reproduced under UML+KASAN on mainline 8d90b09e6741 via
pr_warn-only probe instrumentation: with view.data_off forced
to 0xFFFC, the memmove writes 32 bytes past the end of the
NTFS_DE.
This is similar in shape to Pavitra Jha's 2026-05-02 patch
"fs/ntfs3: prevent oob in case UpdateRecordDataRoot"
(<[email protected]>) which
proposes calling ntfs3_bad_de_range(); that helper does not
exist in mainline. This patch uses inline checks.
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
- 0.1% 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