The Nuvoton NPCX eSPI driver parses Target-Attached-Flash (TAF) requests in espi_taf_parse() (drivers/espi/espi_npcx.c), taking the 12-bit length field directly out of the request header in the FLASHRXBUF FIFO. For write and RPMC OP1 requests it copied DIV_ROUND_UP(len, 4) words into struct espi_taf_pckt.src, a fixed 16-word (64-byte) member of a static structure, without ever comparing the length against that buffer or against the negotiated eSPI receive payload size (rx-plsize, 64 bytes on all in-tree NPCX/NPCK SoCs). Both the loop counter and the word count were uint8_t, so the copy ran up to 255 iterations.
An eSPI controller that emits a flash request whose header claims a payload larger than the negotiated maximum therefore drives up to 239 32-bit stores past the end of the structure — roughly 956 bytes of out-of-bounds write into .bss — from the eSPI flash receive interrupt handler, while the source reads walk past the end of the 18-word FLASHRXBUF register array into neighbouring eSPI registers. The same unvalidated length was then passed on to flash_write() in espi_taf_npcx_flash_write() with the 64-byte src buffer as source, reading up to 4 KB of adjacent controller SRAM into SPI flash at a host-chosen address, where the host can read it back. A related fixed-size stack buffer in taf_npcx_completion_handler() was overflowed by four bytes on the maximum-size completion path on SoCs whose tx-plsize is 64.
The defect is reachable only from the eSPI host side, and only by a request that violates the negotiated payload size, so it requires host firmware or bus-level control rather than ordinary host software; a compliant maximum-length write fits the buffer exactly and is handled correctly. Because TAF exists specifically so that the embedded controller arbitrates host access to shared flash (espi_taf_check_read_protect() / espi_taf_check_write_protect()), corrupting controller memory from a host-supplied field crosses the trust boundary the feature asserts; consequences range from controller crash or hang to corruption of driver state that gates the flash protection regions.
The fix widens the counters, rejects any request whose word count exceeds both ARRAY_SIZE(FLASHRXBUF) - NPCX_ESPI_FLASH_HEADER_ADDRESS_LEN and NPCX_TAF_RX_PAYLOAD_WORDS (derived from the devicetree rx-plsize), marks such packets with a new invalid_flag so espi_taf_work() answers them with an unsuccessful completion instead of processing them, bounds the transmit payload against FLASHTXBUF, and adds a default case for unsupported cycle types. Only configurations with CONFIG_ESPI_TAF enabled on an NPCX/NPCK target are affected; no in-tree board enables it by default.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 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. 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