CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2026-93190

CVE-2026-93190 — platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Reject out-of-bounds PD cap count

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Reject out-of-bounds PD cap count cros_typec_register_partner_pdos() copies the partner PDOs from the EC TYPEC_STATUS response into the fixed caps_desc.pdo[PDO_MAX_OBJECTS] array. memcpy(caps_desc.pdo, resp->source_cap_pdos, sizeof(u32) * resp->source_cap_count); ... memcpy(caps_desc.pdo, resp->sink_cap_pdos, sizeof(u32) * resp->sink_cap_count); PDO_MAX_OBJECTS is 7. source_cap_count and sink_cap_count are u8 fields from the EC. The only check is that they are not both zero. If either is larger than 7, the memcpy writes past the end of the array on the stack. A count of 255 overflows it by about 1 KB. The EC source arrays are only seven entries wide. A larger count reads past them too. The ChromeOS EC firmware caps these counts today, so a compliant setup does not hit this. The kernel…

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, Linux

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

linux

linux

CVSS base

8.4

HIGH

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

linux

Products (1)

linux

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.4CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /chrome.

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • linuxevery CVE for this vendor

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.