In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: validate resident attribute lists and harden the validator
A base inode's $ATTRIBUTE_LIST is sanity-checked by load_attribute_list()
only on the non-resident path; ntfs_read_locked_inode() copies a *resident*
attribute list into ni->attr_list with a plain memcpy() and no validation
at all. Every subsequent walk of ni->attr_list --
ntfs_external_attr_find(), ntfs_inode_attach_all_extents() and
ntfs_attrlist_need() -- then trusts the entries are well-formed and reads
attr_list_entry fixed-header fields
(lowest_vcn at offset 8, mft_reference at offset 16, and the name) with
bounds that assume validation already happened. A crafted resident
attribute list therefore reaches those walks unvalidated and can drive
out-of-bounds reads of the attribute-list buffer.
load_attribute_list() itself reads ale->name_offset (offset 7),
ale->mft_reference (offset 16) and the name length under only an
"al < al_start + size" bound, so its own validation loop can over-read the
fixed header of a truncated trailing entry by a few bytes.
Factor the per-entry validation into ntfs_attr_list_entry_is_valid(),
which requires each entry's fixed header (offsetof(struct
attr_list_entry, name)) to be in range before any field is dereferenced,
that ale->length is a multiple of 8 covering the fixed header plus the
name, and that the entry is in use and carries a live MFT reference.
ntfs_attr_list_is_valid() walks the buffer with it and checks the entries
tile it exactly. Use the list validator in load_attribute_list()
(replacing the open-coded loop, closing its own over-read) and on the
resident path in ntfs_read_locked_inode() (which previously skipped
validation entirely); patches 2/3 reuse the per-entry helper at the other
two attribute-list walks.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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