CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-12633NVD status: Awaiting Analysis

zephyr: Out-of-bounds Write

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-12633 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in zephyr from Zephyr Project, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited from the same local network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 4.3.2, 4.4.2 as the first without the flaw, so updating zephyr to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.31% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update zephyr to 4.3.2 or 4.4.2, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Zephyr Projectzephyr1.8.0 up to, but not including, 4.3.2; 4.4.0 up to, but not including, 4.4.24.3.2, 4.4.2

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
AdjacentThe attacker must be on the same local network segment.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
NoneNo data is disclosed.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (zephyrproject.org).

Official description

The IPv6 neighbor-discovery code in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c processes the 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO, RFC 6775) carried inside ICMPv6 Router Advertisements. In handle_ra_6co() the 8-bit context_len field is taken directly from the packet and was never bounded to the RFC maximum of 128. The function computes context->context_len / 8 and then performs memset(context->prefix + context_len, 0, sizeof(context->prefix) - context_len), where context->prefix is a fixed 16-byte array. With context_len between 136 and 255 (and the option length field set to 3, which the pre-fix validation accepts), context_len / 8 evaluates to 17..31, so the memset length 16 - context_len/8 underflows the unsigned size_t argument to roughly SIZE_MAX. This produces an unbounded out-of-bounds memset that zeroes kernel memory well past the 6lo context structure. The defect is reachable from unauthenticated, link-local input: any host on the same link can send a crafted Router Advertisement with a 6CO option. The RA handler validates only the option length field before calling handle_ra_6co(), so a single packet triggers the wild write. The code is compiled when CONFIG_NET_6LO_CONTEXT is enabled. The impact is a reliable remote (adjacent) denial of service via memory corruption, with collateral integrity loss as the memset zeroes contiguous memory before the system faults. Router Advertisements are link-scoped and not forwarded, so the attacker must be on the same link (AV:A). The fix rejects any context_len greater than 128 before the length computation.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.

More Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities (CWE-787)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in zephyr

All zephyr vulnerabilities

Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.