In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
pstore/ram: fix buffer overflow in persistent_ram_save_old()
persistent_ram_save_old() can be called multiple times for the same
persistent_ram_zone (e.g., via ramoops_pstore_read -> ramoops_get_next_prz
for PSTORE_TYPE_DMESG records).
Currently, the function only allocates prz->old_log when it is NULL,
but it unconditionally updates prz->old_log_size to the current buffer
size and then performs memcpy_fromio() using this new size. If the
buffer size has grown since the first allocation (which can happen
across different kernel boot cycles), this leads to:
- A heap buffer overflow (OOB write) in the memcpy_fromio() calls
- A subsequent OOB read when ramoops_pstore_read() accesses the buffer
using the incorrect (larger) old_log_size
The KASAN splat would look similar to:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ramoops_pstore_read+0x...
Read of size N at addr ... by task ...
The conditions are likely extremely hard to hit:
- Crash with a ramoops write of less-than-record-max-size bytes.
- Reboot: ramoops registers, pstore_get_records(0) reads old crash,
allocates old_log with size X
- Crash handler registered, timer started (if pstore_update_ms >= 0)
- Oops happens (non-fatal, system continues)
- pstore_dump() writes oops via ramoops_pstore_write() size Y (>X)
- pstore_new_entry = 1, pstore_timer_kick() called
- System continues running (not a panic oops)
- Timer fires after pstore_update_ms milliseconds
- pstore_timefunc() → schedule_work() → pstore_dowork() → pstore_get_records(1)
- ramoops_get_next_prz() → persistent_ram_save_old()
- buffer_size() returns Y, but old_log is X bytes
- Y > X: memcpy_fromio() overflows heap
Requirements:
- a prior crash record exists that did not fill the record size
(almost impossible since the crash handler writes as much as it
can possibly fit into the record, capped by max record size and
the kmsg buffer almost always exceeds the max record size)
- pstore_update_ms >= 0 (disabled by default)
- Non-fatal oops (system survives)
Free and reallocate the buffer when the new size differs from the
previously allocated size. This ensures old_log always has sufficient
space for the data being copied.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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 2026-11-09). 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