CVE-2026-87040zephyrproject zephyr classic buffer overflow
CVE-2026-87040 is a classic buffer overflow in zephyrproject zephyr, rated high (8.3 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: High severity, with no exploitation signal yet.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Awaiting Analysis
What it is
Data is copied into a buffer without checking its size and overwrites what follows. Code writes past the end of a buffer, corrupting memory in ways an attacker can often turn into code execution.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it from the same local network segment, without an account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can change data or behaviour and take it offline. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker crash the process, read memory, or in the worst case run code.
Is it being exploited?
There is no public report of exploitation yet. EPSS estimates a 0.29% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 21% of scored CVEs.
What to do
- Upgrade zephyrproject zephyr to a fixed version for your release line (4.3.2, 4.5.0).
- Segment the networks that can reach it.
Description from NVD
The nRF link-layer receive paths of the open-source Bluetooth LE Controller did not validate the on-air LENGTH field of a received PDU against the maximum receive length that was used to program the radio. isr_rx_pdu() in subsys/bluetooth/controller/ll_sw/nordic/lll/lll_conn.c enqueued any non-empty data PDU after only the sequence-number and (for encrypted links) MIC checks, and the corresponding isr_rx() handlers in lll_central_iso.c, lll_peripheral_iso.c, lll_sync_iso.c and lll_scan_aux.c did the same for ISO and extended-advertising PDUs. The nRF radio stores the received header verbatim and truncates only the payload at PCNF1.MAXLEN, so a frame declaring more octets than were configured leaves a node buffer whose len field describes more data than the buffer holds.
An attacker within radio range that can emit a hand-crafted link-layer PDU — for a connection, any peer that establishes an unencrypted LE connection to a connectable advertiser; for CONFIG_BT_CTLR_SYNC_ISO, any broadcaster the device is synchronised to — can set the length byte up to 255 while the controller has programmed a much smaller maximum (lll->dle.eff.max_rx_octets, which is 27 until a Data Length Update, or the negotiated cis_lll->rx.max_pdu). No pairing, authentication or user interaction is required. On encrypted links the CCM MIC check normally rejects such a frame first, so the exposure is on unencrypted traffic, which is why the added check is placed after decryption.
The unchecked length reaches hci_acl_encode() in subsys/bluetooth/controller/hci/hci.c, which performs net_buf_add(buf, pdu_data->len) followed by a memcpy() of that many bytes out of the node_rx pool element. Because CONFIG_BT_CTLR_DATA_LENGTH_MAX and CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE both default to 27, this is an out-of-bounds read of up to roughly 228 bytes past the received PDU and a corresponding out-of-bounds write past the HCI ACL buffer into neighbouring buffers of the same pool; the tailroom test in net_buf_simple_add() is only enforced when CONFIG_NET_BUF_HARDENING (or CONFIG_ASSERT) is enabled. On the ISO paths the same unchecked length makes isoal_rx_append_to_sdu() read past the ISO node buffer and emit adjacent controller RAM to the host as ISO data. The practical result is remote memory corruption and controller crashes, plus disclosure of controller memory into the host data path.
The fix rejects any received PDU whose length exceeds the value that was used to configure the radio reception. Note that lll_sync.c (periodic advertising sync reception) was not changed and still enqueues received PDUs without an equivalent bound.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- Native code: operating systems, browsers and firmware. The flaw sits wherever native code reads untrusted data.
- Network appliances and media or file parsers. The flaw sits wherever native code reads untrusted data.
Trust boundaries in play
- Local network segment. The attacker must share a network segment with the target.
- Wherever native code reads untrusted data. An attacker who crosses it can crash the process, read memory, or in the worst case run code.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does zephyrproject zephyr run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which network segments can reach them?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.