Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-10665 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 36th 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-2026-43242
Vulnerability Data
In Zephyr's WireGuard subsystem (subsys/net/lib/wireguard), wg_process_data_message() in wg_crypto.c linearizes an inbound transport-data payload into a fixed pool buffer of CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN bytes before decryption. The call net_buf_linearize(buf->data, data_len, pkt->buffer, ..., data_len) passed the attacker-derived data_len as both the destination capacity and…
more
the copy length, defeating the function's internal len = min(len, dst_len) bound. data_len is derived from the received UDP datagram length and is only lower-bounded by wg_ctrl_recv() (no upper bound). When data_len exceeds CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN — e.g. when the buffer length is lowered below the link MTU, on links with MTU above the buffer size, or via reassembled IPv4/IPv6 fragments that exceed it — the underlying memcpy writes past the end of the pool buffer, an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787). The overflow occurs before the Poly1305 authentication check, so it requires only a valid receiver session index rather than a valid authenticator, and is reachable by a malicious or compromised peer (or an on-path attacker driving an established session) over the network, yielding remote memory corruption and at minimum a reliable denial of service. The defect was present in the WireGuard implementation shipped in Zephyr 4.4.0. The fix adds an explicit data_len > CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN rejection and corrects the linearize call to pass net_buf_max_len(buf) as the destination capacity.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Out-of-bounds write in WireGuard network data processing reachable via UDP from a peer/on-path attacker directly enables remote exploitation of a network service.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Rejects oversized data_len values from the UDP datagram before the unsafe net_buf_linearize/memcpy that writes past CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN.
Hardware or software memory protection stops the out-of-bounds write from corrupting adjacent memory even when the length check is absent.
Cryptographic integrity verification (Poly1305) would have caught the malicious packet, but the defect performs the overflow before that check runs.
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.
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.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.