CVE-2026-19186
08h55 +00:00
CVE 설명
Integer underflow in IEEE 802.15.4 frame decryption leads to out-of-bounds read and write
ieee802154_decipher_data_frame() in subsys/net/l2/ieee802154/ieee802154_frame.c computed payload_len = net_pkt_get_len(pkt) - ll_hdr_len - authtag_len without first checking that the received frame is at least ll_hdr_len + authtag_len bytes long. All three variables are uint8_t, so a frame whose payload is shorter than the configured authentication tag makes the subtraction wrap around to a large value (up to 255). The wrapped length is passed unchanged to ieee802154_decrypt_auth() and on to the CCM operation as cipher_pkt.in_len/out_buf_max, with apkt->tag pointing at frame + ll_hdr_len + payload_len. Because the receive buffer is allocated to the exact length of the frame received from the radio driver, the crypto layer then reads several hundred bytes past the end of the packet buffer and writes the same number of decrypted bytes back over it in place. The frame's authentication tag is only verified after this processing has taken place, so no key material, association or prior authentication is needed — a single crafted short frame from any device in radio range is sufficient. Frame validation in ieee802154_validate_frame() does not prevent it: a data frame is accepted with a one-byte payload. The result is an out-of-bounds read and an out-of-bounds write of up to roughly 240 bytes into the adjacent network-buffer pool, corrupting other packets or allocator metadata and typically faulting the target. The out-of-bounds content is not attacker-chosen (it is ciphertext XOR keystream over out-of-bounds memory) and the frame is dropped when tag verification fails, so the primary impact is memory corruption and denial of service rather than information disclosure. Exposure is limited to configurations that enable the experimental CONFIG_NET_L2_IEEE802154_SECURITY option, select a crypto device via CONFIG_NET_L2_IEEE802154_SECURITY_CRYPTO_DEV_NAME, and have established a security session with a level other than IEEE802154_SECURITY_LEVEL_NONE; with security disabled or at level NONE the tag length is zero and no underflow occurs. The fix rejects frames shorter than ll_hdr_len + authtag_len before the subtraction, and adds the matching guard on the transmit side in ieee802154_create_data_frame().CVE 정보
관련 약점
| 약점 이름 | 출처 | |
|---|---|---|
| Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound) The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result. |
||
| Out-of-bounds Write The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer. |
메트릭
| 메트릭 | 점수 | 심각도 | CVSS 벡터 | 출처 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 8.1 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
추가 정보
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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. 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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. |
