Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-6688 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) 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 35th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and CM-7 (Least Functionality) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-41000
Vulnerability Data
FatFs R0.16 and earlier contains a downstream-caller vulnerability pattern associated with FatFs long filename handling. With LFN enabled, fno.fname can be up to 255 characters; many callers copy it into short fixed buffers without bounds checks, causing overflow. This maps…
more
to CWE-120 (Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input). Estimated 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). The estimated CISA SSVC vectors are Exploitation: PoC, Technical Impact: Total.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Buffer overflow (CWE-120) in FatFs LFN handling directly enables local exploitation for privilege escalation on affected systems.
Likely ATT&CK TechniquesAI
Techniques this vulnerability likely enables, inferred from its description, weakness type, and attributed-actor tradecraft. Confidence is per-technique.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires bounds checking and size validation on untrusted input such as fno.fname before any copy into fixed buffers.
Allows disabling the LFN feature entirely when it is not required, eliminating the oversized fname source.
Provides memory-protection mechanisms that can contain or block exploitation of the resulting buffer overflow.
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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
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.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.