Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-10669

Memory Safety in Zephyrproject Zephyr 3.7.0 – 4.5.0

Public PoCMemory Safety
Published
14 July 2026
Modified
06 August 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0012 2th percentile
Risk Priority 54 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-10669 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 2th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

On Xtensa SoCs built with CONFIG_XTENSA_MPU and CONFIG_USERSPACE, arch_buffer_validate() in arch/xtensa/core/mpu.c — the architecture hook that verifies a user-mode-supplied buffer is accessible to the calling user thread with the requested permission — defaulted its return value to 0 (access permitted)…

more

and only set a denial result inside its per-MPU-region probe loop. When the rounded extent of the buffer wraps the 32-bit address space (size + alignment offset near SIZE_MAX, or ROUND_UP(size + offset) overflowing to 0), the loop executes zero iterations and the function returns 0 = permitted without probing any MPU region. The syscall-layer pre-checks (K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_SIZE_CHECK / Z_DETECT_POINTER_OVERFLOW) only catch a raw addr+size wrap and do not cover the ROUND_UP-induced wrap, and the string path (arch_user_string_nlen -> arch_buffer_validate) has no syscall-layer guard at all. An unprivileged user-mode thread can therefore pass a crafted (addr, size) to any syscall that validates user buffers via k_usermode_from_copy/to_copy or k_usermode_string_copy and have validation succeed for memory it must not access; the kernel then reads from (disclosure) or, with write=1, writes to (corruption) attacker-chosen kernel or other-partition memory on the thread's behalf, enabling information disclosure, memory corruption, privilege escalation, and denial of service. Affected from v3.7.0 (when Xtensa MPU userspace support was added) through v4.4.0. The fix changes the default to -EINVAL (deny by default), adds an explicit size_add_overflow check, and sets the success value only after the full range has been validated.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
T1211 Exploitation for Stealth Stealth
Adversaries may exploit vulnerabilities to evade detection by hiding activity, suppressing logging, or operating within trusted or unmonitored components.
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-5779Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-6442Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-6444Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-6137Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-8798Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2023-6749Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2023-5055Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-6443Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-6259Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2023-1901Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr

Affected Assets

zephyrproject
zephyr
3.7.0 — 4.5.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V5.2.6

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.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.

prevents

Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.

prevents

Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.

prevents

Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.

References