In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Input: synaptics-rmi4 - bound the F54 report size to the allocated buffer
rmi_f54_work() reads a diagnostics report from the device into
f54->report_data, sizing the transfer with rmi_f54_get_report_size():
report_size = rmi_f54_get_report_size(f54);
...
for (i = 0; i < report_size; i += F54_REPORT_DATA_SIZE) {
int size = min(F54_REPORT_DATA_SIZE, report_size - i);
...
rmi_read_block(.., f54->report_data + i, size);
}
report_data is allocated once at probe from F54's own electrode counts
(array3_size(f54->num_tx_electrodes, f54->num_rx_electrodes, sizeof(u16))),
but rmi_f54_get_report_size() computes the size from
drv_data->num_*_electrodes when those are set, i.e. from the F55
function's electrode counts. Both counts come straight from device
queries (F54 and F55 each report up to 255 electrodes) and nothing
constrains the F55 counts to the F54 ones.
A malicious or malfunctioning RMI4 device that reports larger F55
electrode counts than its F54 counts makes report_size exceed the
allocation, so the read loop writes past report_data (and the V4L2
dequeue memcpy() then reads past it). On conforming hardware the F55
configured electrodes are a subset of the F54 physical electrodes, so
report_size never exceeds the buffer and well-behaved devices are
unaffected.
Record the allocation size and reject a report that does not fit,
mirroring the existing zero-size check.
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 2026-10-27). 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