CVE-2026-87040 : Detail

CVE-2026-87040

8.3
/
Tinggi
2026-11-04
06h17 +00:00
Overflow
Adjacent
2026-11-04
06h17 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

The nRF link-layer receive paths of the open-source Bluetooth LE Controller did not validate the on-air LENGTH field of a received PDU against the maximum receive length that was used to program the radio. isr_rx_pdu() in subsys/bluetooth/controller/ll_sw/nordic/lll/lll_conn.c enqueued any non-empty data PDU after only the sequence-number and (for encrypted links) MIC checks, and the corresponding isr_rx() handlers in lll_central_iso.c, lll_peripheral_iso.c, lll_sync_iso.c and lll_scan_aux.c did the same for ISO and extended-advertising PDUs. The nRF radio stores the received header verbatim and truncates only the payload at PCNF1.MAXLEN, so a frame declaring more octets than were configured leaves a node buffer whose len field describes more data than the buffer holds. An attacker within radio range that can emit a hand-crafted link-layer PDU — for a connection, any peer that establishes an unencrypted LE connection to a connectable advertiser; for CONFIG_BT_CTLR_SYNC_ISO, any broadcaster the device is synchronised to — can set the length byte up to 255 while the controller has programmed a much smaller maximum (lll->dle.eff.max_rx_octets, which is 27 until a Data Length Update, or the negotiated cis_lll->rx.max_pdu). No pairing, authentication or user interaction is required. On encrypted links the CCM MIC check normally rejects such a frame first, so the exposure is on unencrypted traffic, which is why the added check is placed after decryption. The unchecked length reaches hci_acl_encode() in subsys/bluetooth/controller/hci/hci.c, which performs net_buf_add(buf, pdu_data->len) followed by a memcpy() of that many bytes out of the node_rx pool element. Because CONFIG_BT_CTLR_DATA_LENGTH_MAX and CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE both default to 27, this is an out-of-bounds read of up to roughly 228 bytes past the received PDU and a corresponding out-of-bounds write past the HCI ACL buffer into neighbouring buffers of the same pool; the tailroom test in net_buf_simple_add() is only enforced when CONFIG_NET_BUF_HARDENING (or CONFIG_ASSERT) is enabled. On the ISO paths the same unchecked length makes isoal_rx_append_to_sdu() read past the ISO node buffer and emit adjacent controller RAM to the host as ISO data. The practical result is remote memory corruption and controller crashes, plus disclosure of controller memory into the host data path. The fix rejects any received PDU whose length exceeds the value that was used to configure the radio reception. Note that lll_sync.c (periodic advertising sync reception) was not changed and still enqueues received PDUs without an equivalent bound.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID Nama Kelemahan Sumber
CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
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.

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V3.1 8.3 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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.

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

Referensi