In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hwmon: (pmbus) Fix type confusion in notification logic
Sashiko reports:
At the start of the loop in pmbus_notify(), the code unconditionally casts
every attribute to a struct sensor_device_attribute:
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c:pmbus_notify() {
for (i = 0; i < data->num_attributes; i++) {
struct device_attribute *da = to_dev_attr(data->group.attrs[i]);
struct sensor_device_attribute *attr = to_sensor_dev_attr(da);
int index = attr->index;
...
}
However, data->group.attrs can contain other types like struct
pmbus_samples_reg or struct pmbus_sensor, which only embed a base
struct device_attribute.
If da is a struct pmbus_samples_reg, dev_attr is the last member. Casting
it to struct sensor_device_attribute and reading the index field appears
to access memory past the end of the allocation, which might trigger a
slab-out-of-bounds read.
Additionally, if da is a struct pmbus_sensor, casting it causes the index
field to overlap with the page, phase, and reg fields. Could this produce
a garbage mask on little-endian systems that spuriously matches the target
reg, page, and flags during an alert?
Fix the problem by using struct sensor_device_attr in struct pmbus_sensor
and struct pmbus_label. Since those attributes never trigger a
notification, set the value of attr->index to -1 for them. Use this value
to distinguish from boolean attributes which _can_ trigger a notification
and use the index field to encode mask, page, and register values.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.4 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 2026-10-28). 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