CVE-2026-87045zephyrproject zephyr null pointer dereference
CVE-2026-87045 is a null pointer dereference in zephyrproject zephyr, rated high (7.5 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: High severity, with no exploitation signal yet.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Awaiting Analysis
What it is
Code uses a null pointer and crashes, usually taking the service down.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it over the network, without an account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can 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. It can be exploited automatically, at scale.
What to do
- Upgrade zephyrproject zephyr to a fixed version for your release line (4.3.2, 4.5.0).
- Until it is patched, keep it off the internet or behind a VPN, allowlist or authenticating proxy.
Description from NVD
The HTTP/2 server in subsys/net/lib/http/http_server_http2.c clears the connection's stream binding at the start of every frame. handle_http_frame_header() executed client->current_stream = NULL unconditionally, but a CONTINUATION frame does not open a new stream and enter_http_frame_continuation_state() never re-bound one, so the rest of the header block was processed with client->current_stream unset. Two paths then write through the NULL pointer. A request for an unregistered resource, or a method the matched resource does not support, is answered by send_http2_404() or send_http2_405(), and both call send_headers_frame(), which unconditionally sets client->current_stream->headers_sent = true. A POST, PUT or PATCH to a registered dynamic resource reaches handle_http2_dynamic_resource(), which unlike its siblings (handle_http2_static_resource(), dynamic_get_del_opts_req_v2(), dynamic_post_put_req_v2()) had no client->current_stream == NULL guard, and stores through the pointer with client->current_stream->current_detail = dynamic_detail.
Any peer that can reach the server can trigger this without authentication or prior state. A single stray CONTINUATION frame with END_HEADERS set, sent right after the client preface and requesting any unregistered path, is enough, because nothing rejected a CONTINUATION that no HEADERS frame had opened. A legitimate split header block (a HEADERS frame with END_HEADERS clear whose payload ends on a header-field boundary, then a CONTINUATION with END_HEADERS set) reaches the same state. The in-tree test test_http2_post_headers_with_continuation() did not catch this because it splits the header block mid field, which takes the handle_incomplete_http_header() shortcut that keeps the stream bound.
The result is a write to a fixed low address (a small offset into struct http2_stream_ctx), which faults on mainstream targets (flash/vector-table region on Cortex-M, or a trap under MPU/MMU null-pointer detection), and the default fatal-error handler halts the system. Impact is an unauthenticated, remotely triggerable denial of service against any device running the HTTP/2 server: the 404 path needs no particular resource to be registered, and HTTP/2 is built into CONFIG_HTTP_SERVER with cleartext h2c accepted, so TLS does not prevent it. Neither the target address nor the written value is attacker-controlled, so there is no confidentiality or integrity impact. Applications built without CONFIG_HTTP_SERVER are not affected.
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
- Internet-facing entry points. No account is needed. Any instance reachable from outside your perimeter, through a load balancer, gateway, VPN or exposed admin port, is in scope.
- 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 of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
- 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.