In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mwifiex: bound uAP association event IEs to the event buffer
mwifiex_process_uap_event() handles EVENT_UAP_STA_ASSOC by exposing the
(re)association request IEs that the firmware copies into the event:
sinfo->assoc_req_ies = &event->data[len];
len = (u8 *)sinfo->assoc_req_ies - (u8 *)&event->frame_control;
sinfo->assoc_req_ies_len = le16_to_cpu(event->len) - (u16)len;
event->len is supplied by the device firmware and is never validated,
and the subtraction is unchecked. assoc_req_ies points into
adapter->event_body[MAX_EVENT_SIZE], a fixed-size array embedded in the
kmalloc()'d struct mwifiex_adapter.
On the ap_11n_enabled path mwifiex_set_sta_ht_cap() walks these IEs with
cfg80211_find_ie(), whose for_each_element() loop dereferences each
element header. A firmware-reported event->len larger than the bytes
actually received makes assoc_req_ies_len describe IEs that extend past
event_body, so the walk reads out of the adapter slab object, a
slab-out-of-bounds read (KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in cfg80211_find_ie).
An event->len smaller than the header instead makes the int subtraction
negative, which wraps to a huge size_t when stored in assoc_req_ies_len.
The same length is handed to cfg80211_new_sta(), so a more modest
over-claim can also copy stale event_body bytes into the
NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION notification.
A malicious or malfunctioning mwifiex device (USB/SDIO/PCIe) can deliver
such an event while the interface is in AP/uAP mode.
Validate event->len before use: reject a length that underflows the
header or that would place the IEs outside the event_body[] buffer the
event was copied into. event->len here is struct mwifiex_assoc_event.len,
a payload field internal to this event, not the transport frame length,
so it is validated in this handler rather than at the generic
MWIFIEX_TYPE_EVENT receive path, which only sees the event cause and the
transport frame length. The bound is against event_body[MAX_EVENT_SIZE]
rather than the actually-received length because the transports store the
event differently (USB and SDIO leave the 4-byte event header in
event_skb, PCIe strips it via skb_pull), whereas event_body is the single
fixed buffer all of them copy the event into. This is the event-path
analogue of the receive-path bounds checks added in commit 119585281617
("wifi: mwifiex: Fix OOB and integer underflow when rx packets").
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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