In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs/ntfs3: fix slab-out-of-bounds write in ni_create_attr_list()
ni_create_attr_list() allocates a fixed buffer of al_aligned(record_size)
(== record_size) bytes and then walks every attribute of the primary MFT
record, writing one ATTR_LIST_ENTRY per attribute and advancing the cursor
by le_size(name_len), with no check against the end of the buffer; the
total size is only computed after the loop.
A minimum-size resident attribute occupies SIZEOF_RESIDENT (0x18 = 24)
bytes on disk, but an unnamed attribute expands to le_size(0) (0x20 = 32)
bytes in the list. Because the number of attributes in a record is not
bounded (mi_enum_attr() accepts arbitrarily many equal-type, nameless
minimum-size attributes), a crafted record packed with such attributes
produces a list larger than record_size and overflows the heap buffer.
This is reachable from a crafted, loop-mounted NTFS image: opening the file
and adding an attribute (e.g. via setxattr) drives ntfs_set_ea() ->
ni_insert_resident() -> ni_insert_attr() -> ni_ins_attr_ext() ->
ni_create_attr_list().
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ni_create_attr_list+0xc48/0x1058
Write of size 4 at addr ffff000008984c00 by task setfattr/345
ni_create_attr_list+0xc48/0x1058
ni_ins_attr_ext+0x510/0x7c0
ni_insert_attr+0x3f8/0x70c
ni_insert_resident+0xc8/0x3b0
ntfs_set_ea+0x66c/0xd28
ntfs_setxattr+0x4d8/0x5b0
__arm64_sys_setxattr+0xa4/0x124
Allocated by task 345:
ni_create_attr_list+0x188/0x1058
The buggy address belongs to the cache kmalloc-1k of size 1024
(the write lands at object+1024).
Size the buffer from the actual attributes instead of assuming a single
record_size is always enough.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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