In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs3: bound to_move in indx_insert_into_root before hdr_insert_head
indx_insert_into_root() promotes a full resident $INDEX_ROOT into
$INDEX_ALLOCATION and copies all non-last resident root entries into
a newly allocated INDEX_BUFFER via hdr_insert_head(). The source
byte count 'to_move' is summed from the on-disk resident entry sizes
and is independent of the destination buffer size, which comes from
root->index_block_size (via indx->index_bits).
A crafted NTFS image that keeps a valid, full resident root but
shrinks root->index_block_size down to 512 after the root has been
populated makes hdr_insert_head() memcpy attacker-controlled resident
entry bytes past the end of the kmalloc(1u << indx->index_bits)
allocation returned by indx_new(). For a 512-byte destination and a
resident root whose non-last entries total 560 bytes, the memcpy
overruns by 120 bytes and a following memmove extends the highest
written offset to 136 bytes past the allocation. The overflow bytes
are a direct copy of on-disk entries (via kmemdup), so they are
fully attacker-controlled.
The write is reachable from unprivileged open(O_CREAT) on a mounted
crafted NTFS image: a single sufficiently long create in a directory
whose resident root is already full forces root promotion and
triggers the copy.
This is a controlled out-of-bounds write of 120-136 bytes past a
kmalloc(index_block_size) allocation, with attacker-controlled
content. It is a bounded adjacent-heap corruption primitive; it is
not an arbitrary-address write. Successful exploitation into a named
victim object depends on the surrounding slab layout.
Reject the copy at the sink. The destination's INDEX_HDR already
reports hdr_total (the payload capacity of the new buffer) and
hdr_used (the bytes already consumed by the terminal END entry
installed by indx_new()); require that to_move fits in the remaining
payload before calling hdr_insert_head(). On mismatch, fail with
-EINVAL and mark the filesystem as having a detected on-disk
inconsistency, which is the same behaviour as the surrounding
validation in this function.
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