In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mwifiex: use the subframe length when parsing A-MSDU TDLS frames
mwifiex_11n_dispatch_amsdu_pkt() splits an A-MSDU with
ieee80211_amsdu_to_8023s() and walks the resulting subframes. For each
subframe it passes the subframe data pointer to
mwifiex_process_tdls_action_frame(), but pairs it with skb->len, the
length of the A-MSDU parent, instead of rx_skb->len:
rx_skb = __skb_dequeue(&list);
rx_hdr = (struct rx_packet_hdr *)rx_skb->data;
if (ISSUPP_TDLS_ENABLED(priv->adapter->fw_cap_info) &&
ntohs(rx_hdr->eth803_hdr.h_proto) == ETH_P_TDLS) {
mwifiex_process_tdls_action_frame(priv, (u8 *)rx_hdr,
skb->len);
}
The parent is not a valid description of that buffer, and may not be
valid memory at all. ieee80211_amsdu_to_8023s() ends with
if (!reuse_skb)
dev_kfree_skb(skb);
and it only sets reuse_skb when the parent is linear, is not a
head_frag, and is being consumed as the *last* subframe. So when the
parent does not qualify for reuse it has already been freed, and the
read of skb->len is a use-after-free. When it is reused, skb->len is
the length of the last subframe, applied to every earlier subframe,
which over-states the buffer whenever an earlier subframe is shorter.
The callee cannot absorb a wrong length, because it derives its own
ceiling from the value it is given. Each frame type computes
ies_len = len - sizeof(struct ethhdr) - TDLS_*_FIX_LEN;
and the element walk is then bounded entirely against that ceiling,
for (end = pos + ies_len; pos + 1 < end; pos += 2 + pos[1]) {
u8 ie_len = pos[1];
if (pos + 2 + ie_len > end)
break;
so a too-large len moves end past the end of the subframe and the walk
reads and copies beyond it. The A-MSDU layout is chosen by the sender,
which makes the difference between the last subframe and a shorter
earlier one remotely selectable. Reaching this requires TDLS support in
firmware and the TDLS ethertype on the subframe.
The other caller, mwifiex_process_rx_packet(), is correct: it passes a
pointer and a length that describe the same region of the RX buffer.
Pass rx_skb->len, the length of the subframe actually being parsed.
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
- 0.3% 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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