In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smb: server: fix active_num_conn leak on transport allocation failure
Commit 77ffbcac4e56 ("smb: server: fix leak of active_num_conn in
ksmbd_tcp_new_connection()") addressed the kthread_run() failure
path. The earlier alloc_transport() == NULL path in the same
function has the same leak, is reachable pre-authentication via any
TCP connect to port 445, and was empirically reproduced on UML
(ARCH=um, v7.0-rc7): a small number of forced allocation failures
were sufficient to put ksmbd into a state where every subsequent
connection attempt was rejected for the remainder of the boot.
ksmbd_kthread_fn() increments active_num_conn before calling
ksmbd_tcp_new_connection() and discards the return value, so when
alloc_transport() returns NULL the socket is released and -ENOMEM
returned without decrementing the counter. Each such failure
permanently consumes one slot from the max_connections pool; once
cumulative failures reach the cap, atomic_inc_return() hits the
threshold on every subsequent accept and every new connection is
rejected. The counter is only reset by module reload.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can drive the server toward the
memory pressure that makes alloc_transport() fail by holding open
connections with large RFC1002 lengths up to MAX_STREAM_PROT_LEN
(0x00FFFFFF); natural transient allocation failures on a loaded
host produce the same drift more slowly.
Mirror the existing rollback pattern in ksmbd_kthread_fn(): on the
alloc_transport() failure path, decrement active_num_conn gated on
server_conf.max_connections.
Repro details: with the patch reverted, forced alloc_transport()
NULL returns leaked counter slots and subsequent connection
attempts -- including legitimate connects issued after the
forced-fail window had closed -- were all rejected with "Limit the
maximum number of connections". With this patch applied, the same
connect sequence produces no rejections and the counter cycles
cleanly between zero and one on every accept.
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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% 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; 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 (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.
The score's inputs: 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