In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: fix BPF_PROG_QUERY OOB write and cgroup backward compat
BPF_PROG_QUERY writes back the 'query.revision' field unconditionally to
userspace. If userspace passes a smaller 'bpf_attr' structure (e.g. 40
bytes, which was the layout before the addition of 'query.revision'),
the kernel performs an out-of-bounds write.
Fix this by propagating the user-provided attribute size 'uattr_size'
down to the cgroup query handlers, and conditionally skipping writing
the revision field to userspace when the provided buffer size is
insufficient.
query.revision in bpf_mprog_query is structurally identical to the
cgroup case: a late tail field, written unconditionally.
But the backward-compat hazard is not the same.
The min-historical-size test is per command, and bpf_mprog_query only
serves attach types that were born with revision in the struct:
- tcx_prog_query -> BPF_TCX_INGRESS/EGRESS
- netkit_prog_query -> BPF_NETKIT_PRIMARY/PEER
tcx, netkit, the revision field, and bpf_mprog_query itself all landed in
the same v6.6 merge window (053c8e1f235d added the mprog query API +
revision; tcx in e420bed02507, netkit in 35dfaad7188c). There has never
been a tcx/netkit BPF_PROG_QUERY userspace that doesn't know about
revision. So for these commands the minimum legitimate struct already
covers offset 56-64 — no old binary can be broken here.
Contrast with cgroup: BPF_PROG_QUERY on cgroup attach types shipped in
2017; revision write-back was bolted on years later (120933984460). That
path has a real population of pre-revision callers.
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 2026-10-17). 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