In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvme-tcp: fix NULL pointer dereferences in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec
Commit efa56305908b ("nvmet-tcp: Fix a kernel panic when host sends an invalid H2C PDU length")
added ttag bounds checking and data_offset
validation in nvmet_tcp_handle_h2c_data_pdu(), but it did not validate
whether the command's data structures (cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov) have
been properly initialized before processing H2C_DATA PDUs.
The nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec() function dereferences these pointers
without NULL checks. This can be triggered by sending H2C_DATA PDU
immediately after the ICREQ/ICRESP handshake, before
sending a CONNECT command or NVMe write command.
Attack vectors that trigger NULL pointer dereferences:
- H2C_DATA PDU sent before CONNECT → both pointers NULL
- H2C_DATA PDU for READ command → cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL
- H2C_DATA PDU for uninitialized command slot → both pointers NULL
The fix validates both cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov before calling
nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec(). Both checks are required because:
- Uninitialized commands: both NULL
- READ commands: cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL
- WRITE commands: both allocated
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-11). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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