Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-10673 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 33th 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-44746
Vulnerability Data
The Zephyr ADIN2111/ADIN1110 10BASE-T1S/T1L Ethernet driver (drivers/ethernet/eth_adin2111.c) reassembles received Ethernet frames in OPEN Alliance (OA) SPI mode by copying device-supplied 64-byte data chunks into a fixed static buffer ctx->buf of size CONFIG_ETH_ADIN2111_BUFFER_SIZE (default 1524 bytes). In eth_adin2111_oa_data_read(), each valid chunk…
more
was memcpy'd into ctx->buf[ctx->scur] and the write cursor scur advanced, with no check that scur + len stayed within the buffer. The number of chunks (up to 255, from the BUFSTS RCA field) and the per-chunk length are taken entirely from the frame data received off the wire; the cursor is only reset on a start-of-frame chunk. An attacker on the single-pair Ethernet segment can therefore send a frame whose reassembled size exceeds the configured buffer, causing the driver's RX offload thread to write attacker-controlled frame bytes past the end of the static buffer into adjacent driver/kernel memory (up to roughly 14.8 KB in the worst case). This is a remotely/adjacently reachable out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) that can corrupt memory and cause denial of service or potentially code execution. The defect was introduced when OA SPI support was added (commit 0ca8b0756b1) and shipped in releases v3.7.0 through v4.4.0. The fix adds a bounds check that drops the oversized frame and resets the cursor before the copy.
- 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 directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
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 rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
Secure-development practices such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
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.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.
Security testing in development and acceptance includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.