In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: fix u16 truncation of restart-area length check
ntfs_check_restart_area() validates that the $LogFile restart area and
its trailing log client record array fit within the system page size:
u16 ra_ofs, ra_len, ca_ofs;
...
ra_len = ca_ofs + le16_to_cpu(ra->log_clients) *
sizeof(struct log_client_record);
if (ra_ofs + ra_len > le32_to_cpu(rp->system_page_size) || ...)
return false;
ra_len is u16, but the right-hand side is computed in size_t
(sizeof(struct log_client_record) == 160). Both ca_ofs and log_clients
come straight from the on-disk restart area. With an on-disk
log_clients of 410 the product 410 * 160 = 65600; adding ca_ofs and
storing into the u16 ra_len truncates modulo 65536 (e.g. ca_ofs 64
gives ra_len 128), so the "fits in the page" check passes even though
the client array described by log_clients extends far beyond the page.
ntfs_check_log_client_array() then walks the array bounded only by the
on-disk log_clients count:
cr = ca + idx;
if (cr->prev_client != LOGFILE_NO_CLIENT) ...
For log_clients 410 it dereferences records up to ca + 409 * 160,
~64 KiB past the kvzalloc(system_page_size) restart-page buffer -- an
out-of-bounds read of attacker-controlled extent, reachable when a
crafted NTFS image is mounted (load_and_check_logfile() at mount time).
This is the in-kernel analogue of CVE-2022-30789, fixed in the ntfs-3g
userspace driver but never in this revived classic driver.
Compute the restart-area length in a u32 so the existing bounds check
rejects an over-large client array instead of being defeated by the
truncation. Widen ra_ofs and ca_ofs to u32 as well: both are loaded
from __le16 on-disk fields and every comparison already promotes to
int/size_t, so this changes no result and keeps the declaration uniform.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 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