BGC Risk Score
Blue Goat Cyber MedTech rubric v1.0 · methodology
4.0 base 6.9 · CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Delay of care
On CISA KEV (in-the-wild)
5/10 network-reachable signals
How we got to 6.5
- 1
CVSS technical severity (40%)
Industry-standard exploitability + impact score. We prefer CVSS 4.0 and fall back to 3.1 per the FDA's Feb 2026 premarket cybersecurity guidance. Missing CVSS scores get a neutral 4.0 so unknown vulns are not over- or under-rated.
4.0 base 6.9 × 40% = +2.76 - 2
Patient safety impact (35%)
What happens to a patient if this vuln is exploited on a connected device. Auto-inferred from headline, dek, tags, and device class against a curated MedTech keyword library (pacemaker, infusion pump, EHR, PACS, etc.).
Delay of care → 5 × 35% = +1.75 - 3
Exploit maturity (15%)
Is anyone actually using this in attacks? KEV listing > weaponized exploit > public PoC > none. KEV alone forces tier=critical regardless of CVSS.
On CISA KEV (in-the-wild) → 10 × 15% = +1.50 - 4
MedTech exposure (10%)
How likely this affects clinical operations: presence in our MedTech feed (+4 baseline), network-reachable signals (+3), known device-class tags (+2), identified MedTech vendor (+1).
Exposure 5/10 × 10% = +0.50
Tier cutoffs: Critical ≥ 8.5 · High 7.0–8.4 · Notable 4.0–6.9 · Info < 4.0. Full methodology, weights, and changelog at /goatfeed/risk-rubric.
CVE: CVE-2026-7473
CVSS 4.0: 6.9 (MEDIUM) - `CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X`
Weakness: CWE-1023
Vendor / product: Arista Extensible Operating System
KEV added: 2026-06-09 · Federal due date: 2026-06-23
BGC-RS: 6.5 (notable) · CVSS 4.0 base 6.9 · patient-safety: delay-of-care · exploit: kev · MedTech exposure 5/10 · methodology
Vulnerability
On affected platforms running Arista EOS where a tunnel decapsulation configuration—such as VXLAN (Virtual Extensible LAN), decap-groups, or a GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation) tunnel interface—is present, the switch will incorrectly decapsulate and forward other unexpected tunneled packet with a destination IP matching its configured decapsulation IP. This occurs because the switch does not verify the tunnel protocol type, potentially leading to the unexpected processing of non-configured tunnel traffic.
This issue has been reported as being exploited in the wild.
Required action
Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.