In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xprtrdma: Repost Receive buffers for malformed replies
rpcrdma_wc_receive() decrements the transport's Receive count for
every completion before it dispatches a successful Receive to
rpcrdma_reply_handler(). The handler must post a replacement
Receive WR before returning unless ownership of the rep has moved
elsewhere, as on the backchannel path.
Commit 2ae50ad68cd7 ("xprtrdma: Close window between waking RPC
senders and posting Receives") moved the Receive refill out of
rpcrdma_wc_receive(), where it had run ahead of every reply, into
rpcrdma_reply_handler() so that the responder's credit grant could
be parsed before reposting. The bad-version and short-reply exits
never reach that refill: they recycle the rep and return without
calling rpcrdma_post_recvs().
A remote peer can therefore drain the client's posted Receive
queue by sending a sustained stream of replies that are shorter
than the fixed transport header or that carry an unrecognized
RPC/RDMA version. Each such reply consumes one posted Receive
without replacing it. Once the queue empties, the peer's next
Send finds no posted Receive and the transport stalls until
reconnect.
Route both malformed-reply exits through the shared repost tail
after recycling the rep, refilling against buf->rb_credits, the
most recent accepted credit grant. Neither exit updates the
congestion window, so RPCs admitted under the previous grant
remain in flight awaiting replies. A smaller refill target would
let a stream of malformed replies ratchet the posted Receive count
down to the batch floor while the congestion window still admits
rb_credits RPCs; a burst of valid replies to those RPCs could then
overrun the posted Receives, and because the client connects with
rnr_retry_count of zero, a single RNR NAK terminates the
connection. Refilling against rb_credits also restores the target
that applied to malformed replies before commit 2ae50ad68cd7
("xprtrdma: Close window between waking RPC senders and posting
Receives") when rpcrdma_post_recvs() computed it from rb_credits
internally. rb_credits is at least one from connection
establishment onward, so the repost path always keeps Receives
posted.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-17). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 partial (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)14 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 partial (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