CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: mac80211: Fix static_branch_dec() underflow for aql_disable. syzbot reported static_branch_dec() underflow in aql_enable_write(). [0] The problem is that aql_enable_write() does not serialise concurrent write()s to the debugfs. aql_enable_write() checks static_key_false(&aql_disable.key) and later calls static_branch_inc() or static_branch_dec(), but the state may change between the two calls. aql_disable does not need to track inc/dec. Let's use static_branch_enable() and static_branch_disable(). [0]: val == 0 WARNING: kernel/jump_label.c:311 at __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked.part.0+0x107/0x120 kernel/jump_label.c:311, CPU#0: syz.1.3155/20288 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 20288 Comm: syz.1.3155 Tainted: G U L syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Tainted: [U]=USER, [L]=SOFTLOCKUP Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/24/2026 RIP: 0010:__static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked.part.0+0x107/0x120 kernel/jump_label.c:311 Code: f2 c9 ff 5b 5d c3 cc cc cc cc e8 54 f2 c9 ff 48 89 df e8 ac f9 ff ff eb ad e8 45 f2 c9 ff 90 0f 0b 90 eb a2 e8 3a f2 c9 ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 eb 97 48 89 df e8 5c 4b 33 00 e9 36 ff ff ff 0f 1f 80 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000b9f7c10 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffff9b3e5d40 RCX: ffffffff823c57b4 RDX: ffff8880285a0000 RSI: ffffffff823c5846 RDI: ffff8880285a0000 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 000000000000000a R13: 1ffff9200173ef88 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffffc9000b9f7e98 FS: 00007f530dd726c0(0000) GS:ffff8881245e3000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000200000001140 CR3: 000000007cc4a000 CR4: 00000000003526f0 Call Trace: __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked kernel/jump_label.c:297 [inline] __static_key_slow_dec kernel/jump_label.c:321 [inline] static_key_slow_dec+0x7c/0xc0 kernel/jump_label.c:336 aql_enable_write+0x2b2/0x310 net/mac80211/debugfs.c:343 short_proxy_write+0x133/0x1a0 fs/debugfs/file.c:383 vfs_write+0x2aa/0x1070 fs/read_write.c:684 ksys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:793 [inline] __do_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:801 [inline] __se_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:798 [inline] __x64_sys_pwrite64+0x1eb/0x250 fs/read_write.c:798 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xc9/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f530cf9aeb9 Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 e8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007f530dd72028 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000012 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f530d215fa0 RCX: 00007f530cf9aeb9 RDX: 0000000000000003 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000010 RBP: 00007f530d008c1f R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 4200000000000005 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00007f530d216038 R14: 00007f530d215fa0 R15: 00007ffde89fb978

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-191	Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound) The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	5.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H More informations Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.	nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org