CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-76788NVD status: Awaiting Analysis

zephyr: Out-of-bounds Write

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-76788 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in zephyr from Zephyr Project, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 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, 4.5.0 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 0.25% 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 4.5.0, 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 Projectzephyr3.3.0 up to, but not including, 4.3.2; 4.4.0 up to, but not including, 4.5.04.3.2, 4.5.0

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

Official description

The OSDP Control Panel reply parser cp_decode_response() in subsys/mgmt/osdp/src/osdp_cp.c decodes replies from a Peripheral Device into a stack-allocated struct osdp_event. For the REPLY_KEYPPAD and REPLY_RAW reply types, the payload length is taken from the received frame and the only validation performed is that the declared length is self-consistent with the number of payload bytes present in the frame. Because the attacker controls both the length field and the frame length, that check imposes no bound, and the subsequent memcpy() writes into the fixed 64-byte data arrays of struct osdp_event_keypress / struct osdp_event_cardread (OSDP_EVENT_MAX_DATALEN). The sibling REPLY_FMT handler in the same switch already carried the missing > OSDP_EVENT_MAX_DATALEN bound. The defect is reached from cp_process_reply(), which reads bytes from the OSDP RS-485 channel and passes them through osdp_phy_check_packet() and osdp_phy_decode_packet() before dispatching on the reply ID. Triggering it requires CONFIG_OSDP with CONFIG_OSDP_MODE_CP and an application event callback registered (the normal Control Panel integration), plus a frame carrying a correct SOM, a valid CRC-16, and a matching 2-bit sequence number — all of which are computable or observable by anyone on the bus. No check ties the reply ID to the outstanding command, so an oversized REPLY_KEYPPAD or REPLY_RAW is accepted as the answer to a routine CMD_POLL. A malicious or compromised card reader, or anyone with access to the RS-485 wiring, can supply such a frame; CONFIG_OSDP_SC_ENABLED only helps while a secure channel is active, and a single unauthenticated frame carrying a bad MAC causes sc_deactivate(), after which plaintext replies are again accepted. With the default CONFIG_OSDP_UART_BUFFER_LENGTH of 256, roughly 180 bytes of fully attacker-chosen data can be written past the end of the stack-allocated event object, over saved registers and the return address on typical Cortex-M and RISC-V frame layouts (Zephyr does not enable stack canaries by default). The impact ranges from a hard crash of the access-control panel to potential control-flow hijack in the context of the OSDP receive thread. The fix adds an OSDP_EVENT_MAX_DATALEN bound to both handlers, capping each memcpy() at the size of its destination.

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: total).
  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.