CVE-2026-82388 : 詳細

CVE-2026-82388

5.3
/
中
2026-10-26
17h17 +00:00
Memory Corruption
Adjacent
2026-10-26
18h34 +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

bt_hfp_hf_connect() in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/hfp_hf.c allocates the per-connection HFP Hands-Free object with hfp_hf_create(), which starts an SDP discovery by passing the object's embedded hf->sdp_param to bt_sdp_discover(). That call links the caller-owned parameter block into the SDP client's request list (session->reqs in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/sdp.c). If the subsequent bt_rfcomm_dlc_connect() then failed, the affected code wiped the entire object with (void)memset(new_hf, 0, sizeof(*new_hf)) while that discovery was still outstanding, zeroing the sys_snode_t _node that is still linked in the SDP client's list along with the request's func, uuid and pool pointers, and zeroing the hf->slc_work work item that may already be queued on the system workqueue. The discovery could not be retracted instead: bt_sdp_discover_cancel() is declared in include/zephyr/bluetooth/classic/sdp.h but has no implementation. The failing branch is reachable with peer-supplied input. The documented use of bt_hfp_hf_connect() is to pass the RFCOMM channel read out of the remote Audio Gateway's SDP record; neither bt_sdp_get_proto_param() nor bt_hfp_hf_connect() range-checks that value, so a remote device advertising an HFP AG record with an RFCOMM channel outside 1-30 makes bt_rfcomm_dlc_connect() return -EINVAL and drives the local device into the wipe. The same branch is reached without any application misuse when the remote peer controls connection timing, for example when the RFCOMM session is in BT_RFCOMM_STATE_DISCONNECTING or the ACL is dropped between object creation and the RFCOMM call. Once the object has been wiped, the Bluetooth host continues to use it: sdp_client_alloc_buf() dereferences session->param->pool, which is now NULL, and the SDP receive paths call session->param->func() through a null function pointer, neither of which is NULL-checked. Because the wipe also clears hf->acl, the pool slot is considered free and a retry or an incoming HFP connection re-appends the same still-linked list node, turning session->reqs into a self-referential list that the host's list walkers never leave. The result is a fault or an unrecoverable hang in the Bluetooth host thread; the stray indirect call is through an all-zero pointer whose target the attacker does not control, so the practical impact is denial of service. The fix keeps the object allocated and marks it with a new BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_RELEASING flag, letting bt_hfp_hf_discover_cb() release it once the discovery completes instead of destroying it under the SDP client. Only builds with CONFIG_BT_CLASSIC and CONFIG_BT_HFP_HF enabled are affected.

CVE の情報

関連する弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名 出典
CWE-416 Use After Free
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

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 5.3 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/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.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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

参考資料