In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs/ntfs3: resize log->one_page_buf when adopting on-disk page size
log_replay() allocates log->one_page_buf using the page size that was
chosen from the host PAGE_SIZE:
log->one_page_buf = kmalloc(log->page_size, GFP_NOFS);
Later, when a restart area is found, the log page size recorded on disk
is adopted:
t32 = le32_to_cpu(log->rst_info.r_page->sys_page_size);
if (log->page_size != t32) {
log->l_size = log->orig_file_size;
log->page_size = norm_file_page(t32, &log->l_size,
t32 == DefaultLogPageSize);
}
If the on-disk page size is larger than the size used for the initial
allocation, log->page_size grows but one_page_buf is left at its
original, smaller size. A subsequent unaligned read_log_page() then
reads log->page_size bytes into the undersized scratch buffer:
page_buf = page_off ? log->one_page_buf : *buffer;
err = ntfs_read_run_nb_ra(ni->mi.sbi, &ni->file.run, page_vbo, page_buf,
log->page_size, NULL, &log->read_ahead);
overflowing the allocation. This is reachable when mounting a dirty
NTFS volume whose log was formatted with a page size larger than the
buffer initially allocated on the mounting host (for example a 64K-log
volume mounted on a host that allocated a 4K scratch buffer).
Grow one_page_buf when the adopted on-disk page size exceeds the size
used for the initial allocation. On krealloc() failure the original
buffer is left intact and freed by the existing error path.
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
- 0.2% 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