In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ksmbd: reject repeated SMB2 NEGOTIATE requests
Unauthenticated client can send multiple successful SMB2 NEGOTIATE
requests on one connection before SESSION_SETUP. While the connection is
in KSMBD_SESS_NEED_SETUP, smb2_handle_negotiate() accepts another
SMB3.1.1 NEGOTIATE and overwrites conn->preauth_info with a new allocation.
Only the final allocation is freed when the connection is released, leaking
one object for every additional successful request.
A repeated SMB2 NEGOTIATE after a dialect has been selected is a protocol
violation. MS-SMB2 section 3.3.5.4 requires the server to disconnect
without replying in this case. Set the connection exiting when rejecting
the request, in addition to suppressing the response.
Reject SMB2 NEGOTIATE unless the connection is new or is waiting for the
SMB2 NEGOTIATE that follows an SMB1 multi-protocol negotiate. Serialize
both SMB1 and SMB2 negotiation paths under conn->srv_mutex, since they
update connection-wide dialect and negotiation state.
Move the locking contract to ksmbd_smb_negotiate_common(), where the state
and dialect are selected, and add ksmbd_conn_new() for consistent state
access.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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