Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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-2026-19570 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Security Account Manager (T1003.002); ranked at the 20th 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-2026-95526
Vulnerability Data
The LE Audio Broadcast Sink in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_sink.c copies subgroup metadata from a received Basic Audio Announcement (BASE) into the static Broadcast Audio Scan Service parameter structure mod_src_param without any bounds check. In base_subgroup_meta_cb() the destination element was selected as mod_src_param.subgroups[mod_src_param.num_subgroups]…
more
with no test against ARRAY_SIZE(mod_src_param.subgroups) (sized by CONFIG_BT_BAP_BASS_MAX_SUBGROUPS, default 1), and the metadata was copied with memcpy() using the raw on-air length returned by bt_bap_base_get_subgroup_codec_meta() into a metadata array sized by CONFIG_BT_AUDIO_CODEC_CFG_MAX_METADATA_SIZE (default 4). The BASE validator bt_bap_base_get_base_from_ad() only checks structural consistency and permits up to ~24 subgroups and metadata LTVs of ~240 octets. The defect is reached from the periodic advertising receive callback: pa_recv() → bt_data_parse() → pa_decode_base() → update_recv_state_base() → bt_bap_base_foreach_subgroup() → base_subgroup_meta_cb(). Every broadcast sink registers a scan-delegator receive state at creation (bt_bap_broadcast_sink_create() calls broadcast_sink_add_src()), and CONFIG_BT_BAP_BROADCAST_SINK depends on CONFIG_BT_BAP_SCAN_DELEGATOR, so the path is active in every broadcast-sink build once the device is periodic-advertising-synced. An attacker in radio range who operates a broadcast source the device syncs to — or who impersonates the advertiser address and SID of one already in use, periodic advertising data being unauthenticated — can change the BASE at will; each new BASE is re-parsed. A crafted BASE therefore writes attacker-chosen bytes past the end of a fixed static object in .bss: up to roughly 236 bytes for an oversized metadata LTV, plus whole struct bt_bap_bass_subgroup records for each subgroup beyond CONFIG_BT_BAP_BASS_MAX_SUBGROUPS. This is memory corruption of adjacent Bluetooth-audio state reachable with no pairing, bonding or GATT connection, with a potential for remote code execution in the Bluetooth RX thread; in addition, the unvalidated metadata_len is forwarded to bt_bap_scan_delegator_mod_src(), which neither clamps it nor rejects it, leading to a further copy into the receive state and to out-of-bounds memory being disclosed in the BASS receive-state notification sent to a connected Broadcast Assistant. The fix rejects a BASE carrying more subgroups than the receive state can hold (discarding the update entirely) and omits metadata that does not fit rather than copying it, and additionally honours the previously-ignored error return of the subgroup decode pass.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
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 identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
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.