Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-10638 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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 28th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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-2026-37115
Vulnerability Data
subsys/net/ip/icmpv6.c reads the network interface from a net_pkt after that packet has been handed to net_try_send_data(). In icmpv6_handle_echo_request() and net_icmpv6_send_error(), the post-send statistics update calls net_pkt_iface(reply)/net_pkt_iface(pkt) on the just-sent packet. The send path (net_try_send_data -> net_if_tx) unreferences and may free…
more
the packet back to its memory slab before returning — synchronously in the RX thread when no TX queue is configured (CONFIG_NET_TC_TX_COUNT == 0), and asynchronously the driver/L2 may already have freed it otherwise. net_pkt_iface() therefore dereferences a freed (and possibly reused) net_pkt; with CONFIG_NET_STATISTICS_PER_INTERFACE the stale iface pointer is further dereferenced and written through (iface->stats.icmp.sent++), turning the use-after-free read into a write through an attacker-influenceable pointer. The core stack already documents this hazard in net_core.c ("do not use pkt after that call") and caches iface before sending; the ICMPv6 callers did not. An unauthenticated remote attacker triggers the flaw simply by sending an ICMPv6 Echo Request (ping) or an IPv6 packet that elicits an ICMPv6 error (unknown next header, fragment reassembly timeout, destination unreachable), leading to denial of service via crash and potential memory corruption. Affected: Zephyr networking with CONFIG_NET_NATIVE_IPV6, roughly v4.2.0 through v4.4.0. The fix caches the interface pointer before sending and uses it for all statistics updates; the sibling commit 86e21665d46 fixes the identical bug in ICMPv4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Remote unauthenticated exploitation of a network stack flaw (ICMPv6) in a publicly reachable service directly matches T1190; leads to DoS/memory corruption.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer security testing and evaluation (including memory-safety and concurrency test suites) would have detected the post-net_try_send_data() net_pkt access in the ICMPv6 paths.
Security engineering principles require caching required packet metadata before any call that may free the packet, exactly the documented hazard the ICMPv6 code violated.
Memory protection mechanisms can detect or block the subsequent write through the freed net_pkt pointer, limiting the impact of the use-after-free.
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.