Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-10637 is a medium-severity Use After Free (CWE-416) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 22th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-37114
Vulnerability Data
subsys/net/ip/ipv6_mld.c:mld_send() read the packet interface via net_pkt_iface(pkt) after net_send_data(pkt) returned successfully. Per the network stack's ownership contract (include/zephyr/net/net_core.h, and the explicit warning in subsys/net/ip/net_core.c:453-460 'do not use pkt after that call'), a successful send transfers ownership of the net_pkt and…
more
the L2 driver frees it (e.g. ethernet_send() unrefs the packet on success, subsys/net/l2/ethernet/ethernet.c:790), returning it to its k_mem_slab. The subsequent net_pkt_iface(pkt) is therefore a read of a freed object; the recovered interface pointer is then dereferenced and incremented by the per-interface statistics path (net_stats.h UPDATE_STAT/SET_STAT) when CONFIG_NET_STATISTICS_PER_INTERFACE is enabled. If the freed slot is concurrently reallocated, pkt->iface may read back as NULL (NULL-pointer dereference / crash) or as a stale/garbage pointer (stray increment write / memory corruption). The path is reachable remotely on the local link without authentication: handle_mld_query() (registered for NET_ICMPV6_MLD_QUERY) responds to a valid MLDv2 General Query (unspecified multicast address, hop limit 1) by calling send_mld_report() -> mld_send(). The result is a remotely triggerable denial of service of the networking stack, with a narrow possibility of memory corruption. The fix caches the interface in a local before sending and no longer touches the packet after net_send_data(). The IPv4/IGMP sibling (igmp_send) already used the corrected pattern.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Use-after-free in network stack directly enables remote unauthenticated exploitation leading to DoS via system/application exploitation (T1499.004).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Rigorous developer testing and fuzzing of the net_pkt ownership contract around net_send_data would have detected the post-send read of the freed object in mld_send.
Applying secure engineering principles (e.g., explicit resource lifetime and ownership rules) directly prevents the use-after-free pattern introduced when the MLD send path touches pkt after transfer of ownership.
Rapid application of the vendor patch that caches the interface pointer before the send eliminates the freed-object access for this remotely triggered MLD code path.
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 SDLC practices directly incorporate memory-safety tooling and reviews that prevent most use-after-free defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released software.
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.
Security testing in development can detect use-after-free bugs before release.
Secure SDLC mandates memory-safety practices that reduce use-after-free defects.
Application security requirements can specify memory-management rules that mitigate use-after-free.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety design choices that limit use-after-free exposure.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe avoidance of use-after-free patterns.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.