CVE-2026-19570 : Détail

CVE-2026-19570

8.8
/
Haute
Overflow
Adjacent
2026-10-09
08h16 +00:00
2026-10-09
16h37 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

The LE Audio Broadcast Sink in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_sink.c copies subgroup metadata from a received Basic Audio Announcement (BASE) into the static Broadcast Audio Scan Service parameter structure mod_src_param without any bounds check. In base_subgroup_meta_cb() the destination element was selected as mod_src_param.subgroups[mod_src_param.num_subgroups] with no test against ARRAY_SIZE(mod_src_param.subgroups) (sized by CONFIG_BT_BAP_BASS_MAX_SUBGROUPS, default 1), and the metadata was copied with memcpy() using the raw on-air length returned by bt_bap_base_get_subgroup_codec_meta() into a metadata array sized by CONFIG_BT_AUDIO_CODEC_CFG_MAX_METADATA_SIZE (default 4). The BASE validator bt_bap_base_get_base_from_ad() only checks structural consistency and permits up to ~24 subgroups and metadata LTVs of ~240 octets. The defect is reached from the periodic advertising receive callback: pa_recv() → bt_data_parse() → pa_decode_base() → update_recv_state_base() → bt_bap_base_foreach_subgroup() → base_subgroup_meta_cb(). Every broadcast sink registers a scan-delegator receive state at creation (bt_bap_broadcast_sink_create() calls broadcast_sink_add_src()), and CONFIG_BT_BAP_BROADCAST_SINK depends on CONFIG_BT_BAP_SCAN_DELEGATOR, so the path is active in every broadcast-sink build once the device is periodic-advertising-synced. An attacker in radio range who operates a broadcast source the device syncs to — or who impersonates the advertiser address and SID of one already in use, periodic advertising data being unauthenticated — can change the BASE at will; each new BASE is re-parsed. A crafted BASE therefore writes attacker-chosen bytes past the end of a fixed static object in .bss: up to roughly 236 bytes for an oversized metadata LTV, plus whole struct bt_bap_bass_subgroup records for each subgroup beyond CONFIG_BT_BAP_BASS_MAX_SUBGROUPS. This is memory corruption of adjacent Bluetooth-audio state reachable with no pairing, bonding or GATT connection, with a potential for remote code execution in the Bluetooth RX thread; in addition, the unvalidated metadata_len is forwarded to bt_bap_scan_delegator_mod_src(), which neither clamps it nor rejects it, leading to a further copy into the receive state and to out-of-bounds memory being disclosed in the BASS receive-state notification sent to a connected Broadcast Assistant. The fix rejects a BASE carrying more subgroups than the receive state can hold (discarding the update entirely) and omits metadata that does not fit rather than copying it, and additionally honours the previously-ignored error return of the subgroup decode pass.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Adjacent

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org

Références