Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-0849 is a low-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 3.8 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12186
Vulnerability Data
Malformed ATAES132A responses with an oversized length field overflow a 52-byte stack buffer in the Zephyr crypto driver, allowing a compromised device or bus attacker to corrupt kernel memory and potentially hijack execution.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Buffer overflow in kernel driver enables local privilege escalation via memory corruption and execution hijack.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of the length field in ATAES132A responses before any copy into the 52-byte stack buffer, blocking the CWE-120 overflow.
Applies hardware or OS memory-protection features (stack canaries, guard pages, execute-never) that detect or block the stack corruption attempted by an oversized response.
Requires integrity verification of the Zephyr crypto driver code and its input-handling paths, reducing the chance an attacker can exploit a malformed device response.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.