CVE-2026-19738 : Detail

CVE-2026-19738

6.5
/
Sedang
2026-10-11
18h16 +00:00
Adjacent
2026-11-04
05h18 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

The Bluetooth Link Layer Control Procedure (LLCP) implementation for Connected Isochronous Stream (CIS) creation retains an RX node (ctx->node_ref.rx, marked NODE_RX_TYPE_RETAIN) so it can later be reused as the host notification — on the peripheral while awaiting the Host's reply to an LL_CIS_REQ, and on the central for the whole duration of a locally initiated CIS Create. In subsys/bluetooth/controller/ll_sw/ull_llcp_cc.c, the "invalid PDU received" paths of llcp_rp_cc_rx() and llcp_lp_cc_rx() terminated the connection and completed the procedure without releasing that retained node, breaking the invariant checked in llcp_lr_check_done() and llcp_rr_check_done() and orphaning the node's memory. A peer device within radio range can reach this with a single extra LL Control PDU on an unauthenticated, unencrypted ACL link. Against a peripheral, the attacker sends a valid LL_CIS_REQ and then, before the Host replies, any unrelated LL Control PDU (for example LL_VERSION_IND), which ull_cp_rx() routes into the active remote procedure. Against a central performing a CIS Create, a malicious peripheral answers with LL_UNKNOWN_RSP for CIS_REQ, which is dispatched into the active local procedure. No pairing, encryption or user interaction is required; the code is compiled in when CONFIG_BT_CTLR_PERIPHERAL_ISO or CONFIG_BT_CTLR_CENTRAL_ISO is enabled. In default builds (CONFIG_BT_CTLR_ASSERT_DEBUG is default y) the retained-node assertion fires immediately, producing a controller fatal error and, typically, a system reset from one injected PDU. With the development assertions disabled, each attempt permanently loses one node from the controller's small LL notification pool (LL_PDU_RX_CNT, 2 * CONFIG_BT_CTLR_LLCP_CONN) together with its memq_link_t; repeating the connect-attack-reconnect cycle exhausts the pool, after which notification allocation always fails, RX flow control stalls, and the non-disableable LL_ASSERT_ERR() in llcp_lp_cc_flush() faults. The impact is limited to availability — the leaked node is orphaned, never reused or double-freed — and recovery requires a reboot.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID Nama Kelemahan Sumber
CWE-401 Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, making the memory unavailable for reallocation and reuse.

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V3.1 6.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

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

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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

Referensi