In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: validate attribute values on lookup
ntfs_attr_find() and ntfs_external_attr_find() check that generic
resident attribute values fit in their attribute records and that
fixed-size resident values are large enough. For variable-length resident
formats, however, the fixed part is not enough: embedded length fields
can still point callers past the resident value.
A crafted image can set a small resident $FILE_NAME value_length while
leaving file_name_length large. Callers then trust file_name_length and
read past the resident value when converting or comparing the name. This
was reproduced with a crafted image under KASAN as a slab-out-of-bounds
read from the kmalloc-1k MFT record copy. The stack included
ntfs_lookup(), ntfs_iget(), ntfs_read_locked_inode(), ntfs_attr_name_get(),
ntfs_ucstonls(), and utf16s_to_utf8s().
Add a shared attribute value validator and use it before a lookup path
can return an attribute, including the AT_UNUSED enumeration case where
callers inspect returned attributes directly. The helper validates
resident value bounds, minimum resident value sizes, variable-length
$FILE_NAME fields, and non-resident mapping-pairs metadata that was
previously checked separately in both lookup paths.
This also preserves the intended resident @val matching semantics in the
external attribute lookup path. The old duplicated validation block
overwrote the actual resident value length with the type-specific minimum
length before comparing @val, so variable-length resident values could
fail to match even when the bytes were identical. Keep the comparison on
the actual value length, and make ntfs_attrlist_entry_add() compare
resident attributes with lowest_vcn zero instead of reading the
non-resident union member after a successful resident match.
Reject non-resident $FILE_NAME records too: the format requires
$FILE_NAME to be resident and callers treat returned records as resident.
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
- 0.6% 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 (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