In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: nVMX: Move vTPR vs. TPR Threshold consistency check into "normal" checks
Move the off-by-default consistency check for vmcs12.tpr_threshold vs.
the virtual APIC vTPR into the "normal" controls checks, as waiting until
KVM has loaded some amount of state is unnecessary and actively dangerous.
Specifically, failure to unwind vmcs01.GUEST_CR3 to KVM's value when EPT
is disabled results in KVM running L1 with an L1-controlled CR3, not with
KVM's CR3!
Alternatively, KVM could simply reset the MMU to force a reload of
vmcs01.GUEST_CR3, but the _only_ reason the check was shoved into a "late"
flow was to wait until the vmcs12 pages were retrieved. Rather than build
up more crusty code, simply access vTPR using a regular guest memory access
(performance isn't a concern). To circumvent the restrictions that led to
KVM deferring nested_get_vmcs12_pages(), (a) use a VM-scoped API to read
guest memory so that it always hits non-SMM memslots (for RSM), and (b)
skip the check (since its off-by-default anyways) when the vCPU doesn't
want to run, i.e. when userspace is restoring/stuffing state.
If reading guest memory fails, simply skip the consistency check, as KVM's
de facto ABI is that VMX instruction accesses to non-existent memory get
PCI Bus Error semantics, where reads return 0xFFs. And if vTPR=0xFF, then
the vTPR is guaranteed to be greater than or equal to TPR_THRESHOLD.
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 2026-10-17). 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