In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
riscv: lib: Fix ZBB strnlen reading past count boundary
The ZBB-optimized strnlen loop loads one word ahead before checking the
aligned boundary:
REG_L t1, SZREG(t0) // load next word
addi t0, t0, SZREG // advance
orc.b t1, t1
bgeu t0, t4, 4f // boundary check AFTER load
where t4 = (s + count) & -SZREG. When s is aligned and count is a
multiple of SZREG, t4 equals s + count and the loop loads a full word
starting at exactly s + count. If s + count falls on a page boundary
with the next page unmapped, this faults.
Fix by computing the aligned boundary from the last valid byte
(s + count - 1) instead of s + count. This makes the loop stop at the
word containing the last valid byte rather than potentially loading the
word after it. The count == 0 case is already handled by the beqz
early exit.
Also add a pre-loop guard (bgeu t0, t4) for the case where all valid
bytes fit within the first word. With the adjusted boundary, t4 can
equal t0, and entering the loop with stale register state from the
first-word processing would produce incorrect results.
The final minu clamp ensures the result is still correct when the last
loaded word extends past s + count - 1 within the same aligned word.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.4 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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