CVE-2026-12052 : 詳細

CVE-2026-12052

5.2
/
中
2026-08-11
06h17 +00:00
Overflow
Physical
2026-11-04
05h18 +00:00
特定のCVEの通知
特定のCVEの変更情報をいち早くお届けします。
通知を管理する

CVE の説明

The USB device-side CDC NCM class control-to-host handler usbd_cdc_ncm_cth in subsys/usb/device_next/class/usbd_cdc_ncm.c builds a fixed-size response for the GET_NTB_PARAMETERS (28-byte struct ntb_parameters) and GET_NTB_INPUT_SIZE (8-byte struct ntb_input_size) class requests and copies the whole structure into the control DATA IN buffer with net_buf_add_mem(buf, ..., sizeof(...)), ignoring the host-supplied wLength. The control DATA IN buffer is allocated by the USB stack with a capacity of exactly wLength bytes (usbd_ep_ctrl_data_in_alloc -> udc_ctrl_data_alloc -> net_buf_alloc_len(&udc_ep_pool, wLength); no round-up is applied for the IN endpoint). Because net_buf_add_mem/net_buf_simple_add only bounds the copy with an __ASSERT_NO_MSG, which is compiled out in production builds, a host that issues one of these standard CDC NCM control requests with a wLength smaller than the response structure (e.g. wLength = 1) causes the handler to memcpy up to 27 bytes past the end of the allocated pool buffer. The request fields come straight from the USB SETUP packet, so any host (or USB interposer) the Zephyr device enumerates against can trigger the overflow with no authentication once an image built with the device_next USB stack and the CDC NCM class is connected. The out-of-bounds write corrupts adjacent allocations and metadata in the shared udc_ep_pool, primarily causing memory corruption and denial of service of the USB stack; the overflow length is bounded (<= 27 bytes) and the written content is fixed device constants, and the bug reads nothing back so there is no information disclosure. The fix clamps the copy with MIN(sizeof(...), setup->wLength), matching the existing CDC ACM handler.

CVE の情報

関連する弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名 出典
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

メトリクス

メトリクス スコア 深刻度 CVSS ベクター 出典
V3.1 5.2 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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.

Physical

The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack1) or persistent. An example of such an attack is a cold boot attack in which an attacker gains access to disk encryption keys after physically accessing the target system. Other examples include peripheral attacks via FireWire/USB Direct Memory Access (DMA).

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.

Low

Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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

参考資料