CVE-2026-19669 : 詳細

CVE-2026-19669

7.8
/
高
2026-10-11
18h16 +00:00
Overflow
Local
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 user-mode syscall verifiers z_vrfy_fuel_gauge_get_props() and z_vrfy_fuel_gauge_set_props() in drivers/fuel_gauge/fuel_gauge_syscall_handlers.c declared two variable-length arrays, union fuel_gauge_prop_val k_vals[len] and fuel_gauge_prop_t k_props[len], sized directly by the caller-supplied len argument. len is an unvalidated size_t taken straight from the syscall ABI, and the VLAs were allocated before any check at all — including before the K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FUEL_GAUGE() object-permission check. The subsequent k_usermode_from_copy() calls validated only that the user source buffer was readable; the kernel destination was never bounds-checked, since it was sized by the same attacker-chosen len. Any thread running in user mode with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled can invoke fuel_gauge_get_props() or fuel_gauge_set_props() with a large len. This first displaces the supervisor stack pointer by an arbitrary attacker-chosen amount — Zephyr does not build with stack-clash probing, so the displacement itself does not fault, and the nested calls made by the verifier then write frames below the privileged stack. If the caller has been granted access to a fuel-gauge device object, the memcpy inside k_usermode_from_copy() additionally writes len * sizeof(union fuel_gauge_prop_val) bytes of fully attacker-controlled data starting well below the stack base. CONFIG_PRIVILEGED_STACK_SIZE defaults to 1024 bytes, so a len of roughly 170 already exhausts it. The result is an out-of-bounds write in supervisor mode with attacker-controlled length and, on the permitted path, attacker-controlled content — a break out of the user-mode sandbox into kernel memory, leading to kernel code execution or a system crash. A stack guard region does not contain it, because the copy begins below the guard and walks upward, corrupting unprotected memory before the guard is reached. The fix removes the kernel-side copies entirely and validates the caller's arrays in place with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_ARRAY_READ() / K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_ARRAY_WRITE(), which also handle the len * size multiplication overflow; this is safe because neither fuel_gauge_prop_t nor union fuel_gauge_prop_val contains embedded pointers.

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 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

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.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

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

参考資料