Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-10677

Zephyrproject Zephyr 1.12.0 – 4.4.1

Published
21 July 2026
Modified
30 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0011 1th percentile
Risk Priority 44 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-10677 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Zephyrproject Zephyr. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 1th 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

Vulnerability Data

The CONFIG_USERSPACE syscall verifier z_vrfy_k_poll() in kernel/poll.c allocates a kernel-side copy of the user-supplied k_poll_event[] via z_thread_malloc() and then validates each event's object handle. Before this fix, validation used K_OOPS(K_SYSCALL_OBJ(...)) inline inside the loop, which kills the calling thread without…

more

freeing events_copy. A user thread can pass num_events >= 1 with a forged object handle to leak the allocation; because newly spawned user threads inherit the parent's resource_pool (kernel/thread.c), an attacker spawns sacrificial threads to repeat the leak until the shared kernel heap is exhausted. Once depleted, legitimate kernel allocations from that pool (k_queue alloc nodes, k_msgq buffers, future k_poll calls, etc.) fail, causing a system-level denial of service. The fix replaces each inline K_OOPS with a conditional goto oops_free so the buffer is freed before the thread is killed. Affects Zephyr releases from v1.12.0 (when k_poll was first exposed to user mode) through v4.4.1.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1499 Endpoint Denial of Service Impact
Adversaries may perform Endpoint Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to degrade or block the availability of services to users.
T1499.003 Application Exhaustion Flood Impact
Adversaries may target resource intensive features of applications to cause a denial of service (DoS), denying availability to those applications.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-2962Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-10642Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-4179Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2024-4785Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-10679Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-10668Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-10675Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-13351Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-10674Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr
CVE-2026-5590Same product: Zephyrproject Zephyr

Affected Assets

zephyrproject
zephyr
1.12.0 — 4.4.1

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.

Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.

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 SDLC practices directly enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.

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 can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.

finds

Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.

References