Contiki-NG: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2026-5857 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Contiki-NG, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists version a34a2dbdc8bea784bd2ae5079aa4be520cd74f2d as the first without the flaw, so updating Contiki-NG to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.92% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 61% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Contiki-NG to a34a2dbdc8bea784bd2ae5079aa4be520cd74f2d or a later version.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contiki-NG | Contiki-NG | before a34a2dbdc8bea784bd2ae5079aa4be520cd74f2d | a34a2dbdc8bea784bd2ae5079aa4be520cd74f2d |
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
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- 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
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (vulncheck.com).
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | 9.2 | Critical | CNA (vulncheck.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.1 | High | CNA (vulncheck.com) |
Official description
Contiki-NG's MQTT client parse_publish_vhdr() in os/net/app-layer/mqtt/mqtt.c sets topic_len_received=1 before checking topic_len against the 64-byte limit, so an over-length topic returns early but leaves the flag set. On the next TCP segment, tcp_input() re-invokes the parser with topic_received==0, and the persisted topic_len_received==1 skips the length-reading block containing the guard, falling through directly to a memcpy() that uses the unvalidated 16-bit topic_len as the copy length. The 65-byte topic[] destination overruns into adjacent struct fields including the payload_chunk pointer, which subsequent MQTT code dereferences, giving a compromised or attacker-controlled broker an arbitrary-pointer-write primitive. Contiki-NG's MQTT implementation has no TLS support so the connection is plaintext. Impact ranges from information disclosure and denial of service to remote code execution on embedded targets without memory protection.
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.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in Contiki-NG
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 8.3 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.