Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-10658 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 7th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38410
Vulnerability Data
bt_iso_recv() in subsys/bluetooth/host/iso.c pulled the ISO SDU header (4 bytes) or, when the timestamp flag is set, the timestamped SDU header (8 bytes) from the inbound HCI ISO Data buffer via net_buf_pull_mem() without first checking buf->len. The upstream hci_iso() handler…
more
enforces buf->len == the controller-declared ISO Data_Load length, so a malicious or buggy controller / adjacent BLE peer on an established CIS/BIS can present a first-fragment (BT_ISO_START) or single (BT_ISO_SINGLE) PDU shorter than the SDU header. Because net_buf_simple_pull_mem only guards length with __ASSERT_NO_MSG (compiled out when CONFIG_ASSERT is disabled, the production default), the pull underflows buf->len (uint16_t, e.g. 0 - 8 = 0xFFF8) and advances buf->data past valid data: the subsequent reads of hdr->slen and hdr->sn are out-of-bounds reads of adjacent pool memory. For the multi-fragment (START) case the corrupted buffer is retained as iso->rx, and a following CONT/END fragment's net_buf_tailroom() guard underflows to a near-SIZE_MAX value, defeating the bounds check and causing net_buf_add_mem() to memcpy attacker-supplied fragment data far past the RX pool buffer (out-of-bounds write). The flaw affects ISO receive builds (CONFIG_BT_ISO_RX, selected by the default-off LE Audio options BT_ISO_PERIPHERAL/BT_ISO_CENTRAL/BT_ISO_SYNC_RECEIVER) and has existed since the ISO subsystem was introduced (v2.6.0) through v4.4.0. The fix adds explicit buf->len < sizeof(ts_hdr) and buf->len < sizeof(hdr) checks that drop the buffer before pulling.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.