CVE Intelligence
Medium Input validation exploit reference

CVE-2026-10651 — Out-of-bounds read in Bluetooth Classic SDP attribute parsing (`bt_sdp_parse_attribute`)

bt_sdp_parse_attribute() in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/sdp.c validated only that the SDP record buffer held the type-marker byte plus the 2-byte attribute ID (a check of buf->len < 3) but then read a fourth byte, the data-element descriptor (type), via net_buf_simple_pull_u8(). Because net_buf_simple_pull_u8() dereferences buf->data[0] before its only bounds guard (an __ASSERT_NO_MSG that compiles out when CONFIG_ASSERT is disabled, the production default), a record of exactly three bytes (0x09 followed by a 2-byte attribute ID) causes a one-byte read past the end of the logical buffer. The parser is reachable from inbound, remote-controlled data: a Bluetooth BR/EDR peer acting as an SDP server returns discovery-response records that are stored verbatim in the client receive buffer and parsed via the public bt_sdp_get_attr()/bt_sdp_has_attr()/bt_sdp_record_parse() helpers. The over-read is bounded to a single byte that is used only as an internal length selector and is never leaked to the attacker; subsequent length checks then reject the malformed record. Realistic impact is therefore limited to an edge-case denial of service (a fault only if the record ends exactly at a mapped-memory boundary, or a deterministic assert panic when CONFIG_ASSERT=y). Affects Zephyr v4.3.0 and v4.4.0; fixed by adding sizeof(type) to the length check.

Published Jun 22, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: zephyr

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.3%
ahead of 21% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
6.5
Medium · 3 source(s)
Prioritization reference: 7.1 provisional

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Zephyrproject Zephyr).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (input validation), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≤ 4.4.1 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 4.3.0 and < 4.3.1≥ 4.4.0 and < 4.4.2 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Adjacent
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.1 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 4.2 vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.1 CVSS 3.1 High — — zephyr via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 3.6 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)
Scoring entities (NIST, CNA, ADP) score independently; each score is shown with its origin. For prioritization we use 7.1 (vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.30%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
application logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products removed · 1
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Affected products added · zephyrproject/zephyr
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Affected products added · zephyrproject/zephyr
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 6.5
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jun 22, 2026 · zephyr

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Zephyrproject
every CVE for this vendor
Input validation
same class
CWE-20
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-75084 Out-of-bounds write in the TI CC1200 IEEE 802.15.4 driver from an unvalidated radio-supplied packet length 1d
  • CVE-2026-75085 Out-of-bounds read from received-frame length underflow in the STM32WBA IEEE 802.15.4 driver 1d
  • CVE-2026-75083 Integer underflow of the radio-reported frame length causes an out-of-bounds write in the NXP KW41Z IEEE 802.15.4 driver 1d
  • CVE-2026-19673 Out-of-bounds read and net_buf length underflow in Zephyr Ethernet L2 when parsing a truncated VLAN header 1d
  • CVE-2026-19940 Bluetooth HFP AG reuses a connection slot while a delayable work item is still armed, corrupting kernel timeout bookkeeping 2d
  • CVE-2026-19939 Bluetooth Classic AVDTP: stale timeout work on signalling-channel disconnect leads to kernel timeout-list corruption 2d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-10651 is "Out-of-bounds read in Bluetooth Classic SDP attribute parsing (`bt_sdp_parse_attribute`)", rated Medium. It affects Zephyr (Zephyrproject); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.30% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.