In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: target: Bound PR-OUT TransportID parsing to the received buffer
core_scsi3_decode_spec_i_port() and core_scsi3_emulate_register_and_move()
hand the raw PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT parameter buffer to
target_parse_pr_out_transport_id() without telling it how many bytes are
valid. For an iSCSI TransportID (FORMAT CODE 01b),
iscsi_parse_pr_out_transport_id() locates the ",i,0x" ISID separator with
an unbounded strstr() (and on the error path prints the name with a further
unbounded "%s"). An initiator can submit a TransportID whose iSCSI name
contains neither a ",i,0x" substring nor a NUL terminator, filling the
parameter list to its end, so the scan runs off the end of the buffer.
When the parameter list spans more than one page the buffer is a multi-page
vmap (transport_kmap_data_sg()), so the over-read walks into the trailing
vmalloc guard page and oopses (KASAN: vmalloc-out-of-bounds in strstr). It
is reachable by any fabric that delivers a PR OUT to a device exported
through an iSCSI TPG, including a guest via vhost-scsi.
Pass the number of received bytes down to the parser and validate the iSCSI
TransportID's own self-described length (ADDITIONAL LENGTH + 4) once, up
front: reject it if it is below the spc4r17 minimum or larger than the
received buffer, then bound the separator search, the ISID walk and the
name copy by that length. This is the length check the callers already
perform after the parse (core_scsi3_decode_spec_i_port() compares tid_len
against tpdl, core_scsi3_emulate_register_and_move() validates it against
data_length), moved ahead of the scan. Also drop the unbounded "%s" of the
unterminated name.
Add per-format explicit name-length checks before copying into i_str,
rather than silently truncating with min_t: for FORMAT CODE 00b reject if
the descriptor body (tid_len - 4 bytes) cannot fit in
i_str[TRANSPORT_IQN_LEN]; for FORMAT CODE 01b reject if the name portion
(from &buf[4] up to the separator) cannot fit. Both checks make the bounds
intent explicit at each format branch.
While here, also reject a FORMAT CODE 01b TransportID whose ",i,0x"
separator sits at the very end of the descriptor: that leaves an empty ISID
and points the returned port nexus pointer at buf + tid_len, one past the
descriptor, which the registration code (__core_scsi3_locate_pr_reg(),
__core_scsi3_alloc_registration()) then dereferences as the ISID string --
the same over-read of the parameter buffer for a malformed descriptor.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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