CVE-2026-85034 : 상세 정보

CVE-2026-85034

6.7
/
보통
2026-11-03
14h17 +00:00
Overflow
Adjacent
2026-11-03
19h18 +00:00
특정 CVE 알림
특정 CVE의 변경 사항에 대한 정보를 받아보세요.
알림 관리

CVE 설명

The Bluetooth host's GATT client passed the value of a received Handle Value Notification, Handle Value Indication or Multiple Handle Value Notification to bt_gatt_subscribe_params::notify callbacks using only the length derived from the received ATT PDU. bt_att_recv() in subsys/bluetooth/host/att.c validates only a minimum PDU length and does not enforce the negotiated ATT MTU, and the fixed ATT L2CAP channel in subsys/bluetooth/host/l2cap.c applies no rx.mtu check either, so the only ceiling was the ACL reassembly buffer CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE. Values longer than the 512-octet maximum attribute length defined by the Bluetooth Core Specification (Vol 3, Part F, Section 3.2.9) could therefore be handed to subscribers that size their buffers to that documented limit. A remote peer that a device has connected and subscribed to — a malicious, spoofed or compromised GATT server within radio range — triggers the flaw by sending a notification or indication whose value exceeds 512 octets on a subscribed handle. In the LE Audio unicast client this reaches a concrete out-of-bounds write: unicast_client_ep_notify() in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_unicast_client.c copies the notification into the 512-byte att_buf of struct unicast_client with net_buf_simple_add_mem() and no tailroom check whenever length equals bt_audio_get_max_ntf_size(), i.e. the negotiated ATT MTU minus three. notify_handler() in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c has the same shape. Reaching the overflow requires a build whose ATT MTU exceeds 515 octets (CONFIG_BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU and CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE set for full-length attribute support); the shipped defaults are far smaller. The overflow writes peer-controlled bytes past att_buf directly over the adjacent struct net_buf_simple net_buf — its data, __buf, len and size fields — which the subsequent long-read accumulation then uses as its destination, turning a small linear overflow into a controlled write. net_buf_simple_add() only asserts on insufficient tailroom unless CONFIG_NET_BUF_HARDENING is enabled, and that option is disabled by default, so ordinary production builds perform the copy. Beyond the in-tree LE Audio clients, any application subscriber that sized its receive buffer to the specification's 512-octet limit was exposed to the same overflow. The fix rejects notification, indication and multiple-notification values longer than BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN in call_notify_cb_and_maybe_unsubscribe() in subsys/bluetooth/host/gatt.c before any subscriber callback is invoked, so no subscriber can be handed more than the specified maximum. Remaining tuples of a multiple handle value notification are still delivered and oversized indications are still confirmed.

CVE 정보

관련 약점

CWE-ID 약점 이름 출처
CWE-787 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 6.7 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/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.

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.

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.

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

참고 자료