In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
NFSD: NFSv4 file creation neglects setting ACL
An NFSv4 client that sets an ACL with a named principal during file
creation retrieves the ACL afterwards, and finds that it is only a
default ACL (based on the mode bits) and not the ACL that was
requested during file creation. This violates RFC 8881 section
6.4.1.3: "the ACL attribute is set as given".
The issue occurs in nfsd_create_setattr(), which calls
nfsd_attrs_valid() to determine whether to call nfsd_setattr().
However, nfsd_attrs_valid() checks only for iattr changes and
security labels, but not POSIX ACLs. When only an ACL is present,
the function returns false, nfsd_setattr() is skipped, and the
POSIX ACL is never applied to the inode.
Subsequently, when the client retrieves the ACL, the server finds
no POSIX ACL on the inode and returns one generated from the file's
mode bits rather than returning the originally-specified ACL.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-09). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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