In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: Add a sanity check for btree node size
Syzbot reported an uninit-value bug in [1] with a corrupted HFS+ image,
during the file system mounting process, specifically while loading the
catalog, a corrupted node_size value of 1 caused the rec_off argument
passed to hfs_bnode_read_u16() (within hfs_bnode_find()) to be excessively
large. Consequently, the function failed to return a valid value to
initialize the off variable, triggering the bug [1].
Every node starts from BTree node descriptor: struct hfs_bnode_desc.
So, the size of node cannot be lesser than that. However, technical
specification declares that: "The node size (which is expressed in bytes)
must be power of two, from 512 through 32,768, inclusive." Add a check
for btree node size base on technical specification.
[1]
BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in hfsplus_bnode_find+0x141c/0x1600 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:584
hfsplus_bnode_find+0x141c/0x1600 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:584
hfsplus_btree_open+0x169a/0x1e40 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
hfsplus_fill_super+0x111f/0x2770 fs/hfsplus/super.c:553
get_tree_bdev_flags+0x6e6/0x920 fs/super.c:1694
get_tree_bdev+0x38/0x50 fs/super.c:1717
hfsplus_get_tree+0x35/0x40 fs/hfsplus/super.c:709
vfs_get_tree+0xb3/0x5d0 fs/super.c:1754
fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
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
- 0.2% 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