EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 4.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
The Infineon PSOC 6 BLESS HCI driver in drivers/bluetooth/hci/hci_infineon_psoc6_bless.c stored the outgoing HCI packet descriptor in a file-scope variable, static cy_stc_ble_hci_tx_packet_info_t hci_tx_pkt. psoc6_bless_send() cleared and populated that descriptor's packetType, dataLength and data fields before acquiring psoc6_bless_operation_sem, so the driver's serialising semaphore protected only the call into Cy_BLE_SoftHciSendAppPkt() and not the shared state that call reads.
The Bluetooth host does not guarantee a single HCI sender. Most transmissions are funnelled through the cooperative TX-processor work queue, but bt_hci_cmd_send() deliberately bypasses bt_dev.cmd_tx_queue for BT_HCI_OP_HOST_NUM_COMPLETED_PACKETS and calls bt_send() directly from the caller's thread; that caller is bt_hci_host_num_completed_packets(), the acl_in_pool destroy callback, which runs on whichever thread drops the last reference to a received ACL buffer. CONFIG_BT_HCI_ACL_FLOW_CONTROL defaults to y on this driver's boards, and an application that returns -EINPROGRESS from its L2CAP recv callback and later calls bt_l2cap_chan_recv_complete() performs that unref from its own preemptible thread. A remote peer that generates Bluetooth traffic concurrently with the device's own transmissions raises the collision rate.
When two senders interleave, the semaphore holder can hand the controller a descriptor whose dataLength comes from one net_buf and whose data pointer comes from another — or one whose buffer has already been returned to its pool. The controller then copies and transmits up to a full HCI/ACL payload starting at a shorter or recycled buffer, disclosing adjacent RAM contents to the connected peer; other interleavings duplicate one HCI packet and silently drop another, disrupting the link. The driver only reads through the shared descriptor, so no memory corruption or write primitive results, and the disclosed bytes are not attacker-chosen. The fix makes the descriptor a local variable in psoc6_bless_send(), removing the shared state; Cy_BLE_SoftHciSendAppPkt() copies the packet before returning, so it need not outlive the call.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.2 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-23). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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