Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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-2026-6682 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Elm-Chan Fatfs. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 25th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-40992
Vulnerability Data
In FatFS R0.16 and earlier contains a FAT32 integer overflow bug in mount_volume() where fasize *= fs->n_fats can wrap, leading to attacker-controlled file-size metadata and unsafe read lengths in downstream callers. This maps to CWE-190 (Integer Overflow or Wraparound). Estimated…
more
CVSS v3.1 vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H (7.6, High). Remote delivery is also possible in OTA/update pipelines. The estimated CISA SSVC vectors are Exploitation: PoC, Technical Impact: Total.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer 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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.