CVE Intelligence
High Access control exploit reference

CVE-2026-10671 — User thread can re-initialize an in-use `k_pipe`, corrupting kernel wait queues (`CONFIG_USERSPACE`)

In Zephyr's kernel pipe implementation, the userspace syscall verifier z_vrfy_k_pipe_init() in kernel/pipe.c used K_SYSCALL_OBJ() (which requires the kernel object to already be initialized) instead of K_SYSCALL_OBJ_NEVER_INIT() (which rejects an already-initialized object). As a result, on CONFIG_USERSPACE builds an unprivileged user thread that has been granted access to a k_pipe object can invoke the k_pipe_init syscall to re-initialize a pipe that is already in use. z_impl_k_pipe_init() unconditionally resets the ring buffer, sets pipe->waiting to 0, and re-initializes both wait queues (z_waitq_init on pipe->data and pipe->space) without waking or accounting for threads currently blocked on the pipe. Any thread already pended in k_pipe_read()/k_pipe_write() is left orphaned: still marked pending with pended_on pointing at the cleared wait queue and with stale qnode_dlist links into the (now re-initialized) embedded list head. When such an orphaned waiter is later timed out or woken, the scheduler calls sys_dlist_remove() on its stale node, writing through dangling prev/next pointers into kernel wait-queue/scheduler structures, causing list corruption (an attacker-driven invalid kernel write), lost wakeups, indefinitely blocked threads, and silent data loss. The flaw lets a deprivileged user thread corrupt the state of a kernel object shared with other threads/partitions. The fix switches the verifier to K_SYSCALL_OBJ_NEVER_INIT(), matching the existing k_msgq_init verifier, so a user thread can no longer re-initialize a live pipe. The vulnerable code shipped in v4.1.0 and remained through v4.4.0.

Published Jul 14, 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 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
  • Technical severity (high)+6

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
0.16%
ahead of 5% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
7.1
High · 2 source(s)

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)
  • 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 (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 4.1.0 and < 4.5.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 4.1.0 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
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
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 1.8 5.2 vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.1 CVSS 3.1 High — — zephyr via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-1188 · Insecure Default Initialization of Resource

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
  • Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
endpoint telemetry (EDR)authentication logsapplication 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 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 7.1
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 14, 2026 · zephyr

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Zephyrproject
every CVE for this vendor
Access control
same class
CWE-1188
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Medium CVE-2026-75084 Out-of-bounds write in the TI CC1200 IEEE 802.15.4 driver from an unvalidated radio-supplied packet length 2d
  • Medium 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 2d
  • Medium CVE-2026-75085 Out-of-bounds read from received-frame length underflow in the STM32WBA IEEE 802.15.4 driver 2d
  • High CVE-2026-19673 Out-of-bounds read and net_buf length underflow in Zephyr Ethernet L2 when parsing a truncated VLAN header 2d
  • Medium CVE-2026-19940 Bluetooth HFP AG reuses a connection slot while a delayable work item is still armed, corrupting kernel timeout bookkeeping 3d
  • Medium CVE-2026-19939 Bluetooth Classic AVDTP: stale timeout work on signalling-channel disconnect leads to kernel timeout-list corruption 3d

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-2026-10671 is "User thread can re-initialize an in-use `k_pipe`, corrupting kernel wait queues (`CONFIG_USERSPACE`)", rated High. It affects Zephyr (Zephyrproject); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.16% 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.