In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
IB/isert: reject PDUs declaring more data than was received
isert_recv_done() hands each received PDU to the opcode handlers without
ever looking at wc->byte_len, the number of bytes the HCA actually placed
in the receive descriptor. The handlers then copy that many bytes - the
data-segment length the initiator declared in the BHS
(ntoh24(hdr->dlength), via the derived unsol_data_len / imm_data_len) -
out of the fixed-size descriptor:
isert_handle_iscsi_dataout():
sg_copy_from_buffer(sg_start, sg_nents, isert_get_data(rx_desc),
unsol_data_len);
isert_handle_scsi_cmd():
sg_copy_from_buffer(cmd->se_cmd.t_data_sg, sg_nents,
isert_get_data(rx_desc), imm_data_len);
Because the declared length is never checked against wc->byte_len, an
initiator can declare a data segment larger than the bytes it actually
sent (and larger than the descriptor) and cause an out-of-bounds read of
the receive buffer.
Nothing upstream of isert closes this door:
- __iscsit_check_dataout_hdr() bounds the inbound payload against
conn_ops->MaxXmitDataSegmentLength (MXDSL) - a transmit parameter,
used here for the inbound check.
- iscsi_set_connection_parameters() sets
ops->MaxXmitDataSegmentLength = ops->TargetRecvDataSegmentLength;
and TARGETRECVDATASEGMENTLENGTH is absent from the min()-clamp list in
iscsi_check_acceptor_state(), so the value the initiator declares is
adopted verbatim (type range 512..16777215). The initiator effectively
raises its own ceiling.
- isert never clamps the negotiated value to its own fixed receive
descriptor (ISER_RX_SIZE, 9216 bytes), so the target core's bound and
the descriptor size are unrelated.
The imm_data_len == data_len path is more than an over-read: it aliases
the receive descriptor via sg_set_buf() and passes it to the backend as
the data source for the SCSI WRITE, so an over-declared length causes heap
contents past the descriptor to be written through the backend to the
backing store. The backend is the victim of the oversized scatterlist
isert hands it, not the cause; no read-back of the written bytes was
demonstrated.
Trigger: after login completes (full feature phase), an initiator that has
declared a large TargetRecvDataSegmentLength and a FirstBurstLength that
permits unsolicited/immediate data sends a PDU whose declared data-segment
length exceeds what was received. With KASAN:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sg_copy_buffer+0x150/0x1c0
Read of size 4096 at addr ffff888109720800 by task kworker/1:0H/25
Workqueue: ib-comp-wq ib_cq_poll_work
Call Trace:
sg_copy_buffer+0x150/0x1c0
isert_recv_done+0xba6/0x2390
__ib_process_cq+0xe1/0x390
ib_cq_poll_work+0x46/0x150
isert_recv_done+0xba6 resolves to isert_handle_iscsi_dataout()
(ib_isert.c:1160), inlined through isert_rx_opcode().
Validate wc->byte_len against the framing in isert_recv_done() before the
PDU reaches any handler, and reinstate the connection if it is short.
Because the test compares without subtracting the header length, it also
rejects PDUs shorter than the iSER and iSCSI headers, which would otherwise
be parsed out of stale descriptor contents. The login handler rejects PDUs
shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN (commit 29e7b925ae6d ("IB/isert: Reject login
PDUs shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN")) but does not bound the declared
length either; that is fixed in the next patch. The data handlers had no
length check at all.
isert reads the data segment from a fixed offset: isert_get_data()
returns the iSER header plus ISER_HEADERS_LEN and makes no adjustment for
an AHS. The bytes the handlers touch are therefore exactly
[ISER_HEADERS_LEN, ISER_HEADERS_LEN + dlength), and comparing that sum
against wc->byte_len bounds precisely the region that is read. An AHS
term would only make the test stricter without bounding anything furth
---truncated---
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% 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