In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fbdev: bitblit: bound-check glyph index in bit_cursor()
bit_cursor() fetches the glyph under the cursor with
c = scr_readw(vc_pos);
src = vc_font.data + ((c & charmask) * w * height);
where charmask is 0x1ff when vc_hi_font_mask is set. The screen buffer
value comes directly from scr_readw() and may be larger than the current
font's glyph count.
Syzkaller triggers this via vcs_write(). The Call Trace shows
vcs_write() in vc_screen.c writing an arbitrary 16-bit value with
writev() to /dev/vcsa, which vcs_write_buf() in vc_screen.c stores via
vcs_scr_writew() without checking charcount. The stored value is later
read in bit_cursor() in bitblit.c.
When the font is changed from a font with 512 glyphs to a font with
256 glyphs, the screen buffer can retain characters with the high
bit set from the previous mode, which could also produce the same
out-of-bounds access.
BUG: KASAN: global-out-of-bounds in soft_cursor+0x378/0x6bc drivers/video/fbdev/core/softcursor.c:70
Read of size 16 at addr ffff800086c57970
Call Trace:
soft_cursor+0x378/0x6bc drivers/video/fbdev/core/softcursor.c:70
bit_cursor+0xa90/0x1108 drivers/video/fbdev/core/bitblit.c:365
fbcon_cursor+0x344/0x498 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbcon.c:1427
hide_cursor+0xdc/0x2d0 drivers/tty/vt/vt.c:883
update_region+0x100/0x18c drivers/tty/vt/vt.c:669
vcs_write+0x8ec/0xaf0 drivers/tty/vt/vc_screen.c:685
bit_putcs_aligned() and bit_putcs_unaligned() already clamp the glyph
index to vc_font.charcount. Apply the same clamp in bit_cursor() after
extracting the attribute and masking, before indexing fontdata.
The fix completes the bounds checking started in commit 18c4ef4e765a
("fbdev: bitblit: bound-check glyph index in bit_putcs*"), which missed
the cursor path.
This change should be safe because the clamp reuses the existing
contract from fbcon: charcount is maintained under console_lock in
con_font_set() and fbcon_font_set(), and hi_font_mask is cleared when
switching from 512 to 256 glyphs. When stale screen data with high bits
remains after a font switch, or when vcs_write() stores an arbitrary
value, clamping the index to 0 prevents the out-of-bounds read without
changing cursor semantics — the same fallback bit_putcs uses.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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