CVE-2026-72367

HIGHPre-NVD 8.88.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-08-15. A secondary CVSS source baseline 8.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
8.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.6%CVSS: 8.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

iomap: guard io_size EOF trim against concurrent truncate underflow

iomap: fix zero padding data issue in concurrent append writes changed ioend accounting so that io_size tracks only valid data within EOF. This trims io_size when a writeback range extends past end_pos:

ioend->io_size += map_len; if (ioend->io_offset + ioend->io_size > end_pos) ioend->io_size = end_pos - ioend->io_offset;

However, if end_pos ends up below ioend->io_offset, the subtraction becomes negative and is stored in size_t io_size, causing an unsigned wrap to a huge value. This can happen when writeback continues past byte-level EOF up to a block-aligned range, or when a concurrent truncate shrinks the file after end_pos was sampled in iomap_writeback_handle_eof().

A wrapped io_size can mislead append detection and corrupt completion-time size handling, since filesystem end_io paths consume io_size for decisions such as on-disk EOF updates and unwritten/COW completion ranges.

Fix this by clamping io_size to zero when EOF has moved to or before the ioend start offset. This preserves the original intent of trimming io_size to valid in-EOF data while avoiding the underflow.

CVSS v3
8.8
EG Score
8.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
40
EG Risk 40/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity88% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.6% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
46th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.8 HIGHCVSS-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

Published

August 15, 2026

Last Modified

August 17, 2026

Advisory Details (3)

Auto-updated Aug 17, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

iomap: guard io_size EOF trim against concurrent truncate underflow - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7f7780abb4c0fdc9a2603aea8e985ff14ee900e0
Web page

iomap: guard io_size EOF trim against concurrent truncate underflow - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/55ec50d046c03b3724741957f7b007856e36dbe7
Web page

iomap: guard io_size EOF trim against concurrent truncate underflow - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1f38f65bf965fce9aa159d45c5347538f56c5973

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-72367(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(6)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (181 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.1~rc7-1~exp1 (160 versions)
  • every version up to 7.1.5-1: fixed in 7.1.5-1
—

All Vendor Advisories

(6)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 75× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 214 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 114 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-20 08:40 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-20 08:40 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-10-20 08:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  4. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  5. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  6. 2026-10-18 03:16 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  8. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  9. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  10. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  11. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  12. 2026-10-13 08:14 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-13 08:14 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-10-13 08:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  15. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  16. 2026-10-12 15:42 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-11 19:27 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-11 16:43 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-11 14:03 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  21. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  22. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  23. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  24. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  25. 2026-10-06 22:38 UTCEG score recompute
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-06 22:38 UTCVendor advisory
  2. 2026-10-06 22:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  3. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  4. 2026-10-06 09:14 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-06 09:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  6. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  7. 2026-10-05 12:29 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-05 12:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  9. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  10. 2026-10-04 22:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  11. 2026-10-04 07:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  12. 2026-10-03 19:34 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-03 19:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  14. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  15. 2026-10-02 19:19 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-02 19:19 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  17. 2026-10-02 07:11 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-02 07:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  19. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  20. 2026-10-01 09:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  21. 2026-09-30 21:09 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-09-30 21:09 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  23. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  24. 2026-09-29 00:09 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-29 00:09 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  26. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  27. 2026-09-28 11:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  28. 2026-09-27 22:59 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-09-27 22:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  30. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  31. 2026-09-27 08:38 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-09-27 08:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  33. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  34. 2026-09-25 02:41 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-09-25 02:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  36. 2026-09-24 08:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  37. 2026-09-23 20:51 UTCEG score recompute
  38. 2026-09-23 20:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  39. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  40. 2026-09-23 08:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  41. 2026-09-22 20:49 UTCEG score recompute
  42. 2026-09-22 20:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  43. 2026-09-22 04:01 UTCEG score recompute
  44. 2026-09-22 04:01 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  45. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  46. 2026-09-21 15:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  47. 2026-09-21 03:32 UTCEG score recompute
  48. 2026-09-21 03:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  49. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  50. 2026-09-20 15:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  51. 2026-09-20 00:51 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-09-20 00:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  53. 2026-09-19 12:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  54. 2026-09-19 00:47 UTCEG score recompute
  55. 2026-09-19 00:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  56. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  57. 2026-09-18 12:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  58. 2026-09-18 00:21 UTCEG score recompute
  59. 2026-09-18 00:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  60. 2026-09-17 11:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  61. 2026-09-16 23:37 UTCEG score recompute
  62. 2026-09-16 23:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  63. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  64. 2026-09-16 10:23 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-09-16 10:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  66. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  67. 2026-09-15 21:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  68. 2026-09-15 08:35 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-09-15 08:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  70. 2026-09-15 03:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  71. 2026-09-14 20:34 UTCEG score recompute
  72. 2026-09-14 20:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  73. 2026-09-14 05:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  74. 2026-09-13 17:45 UTCEG score recompute
  75. 2026-09-13 17:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-r9wm-p769-97j8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-72367?
CVE-2026-72367 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 15, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iomap: guard io_size EOF trim against concurrent truncate underflow iomap: fix zero padding data issue in concurrent append writes changed ioend accounting so that io_size tracks only valid data within EOF. This trims io_size when…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-72367 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-72367 was published on August 15, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 17, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-72367 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-72367 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-72367?
CVE-2026-72367 has a CVSS base score of 8.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-72367?
A fix for CVE-2026-72367 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-72367 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-72367

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-72367?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.