CVE Intelligence
Medium Info disclosure

CVE-2026-13343 — Uninitialised stack memory disclosure in the MIDI 2.0 UMP Stream responder

The UMP Stream responder library in lib/midi2/ump_stream_responder.c builds reply packets in a 16-byte struct midi_ump (uint32_t data[4]). The builders make_endpoint_info() and make_function_block_info() populate only the first two words (res.data[0] and res.data[1]) and, before this fix, declared their result as an uninitialised local (struct midi_ump res;). The remaining two words (res.data[2], res.data[3]) retain stale stack contents. Endpoint Info and Function Block Info notifications are UMP Stream messages (UMP_MT_UMP_STREAM), which are 4 words long, so the full 16-byte packet — including the two uninitialised words — is transmitted verbatim by cfg->send(). The responder is driven by attacker-supplied UMP Stream Endpoint-Discovery / Function-Block-Discovery requests via ump_stream_respond(). In the in-tree Network MIDI 2.0 server (subsys/net/lib/midi2/netmidi2.c) these requests arrive as UDP datagrams and, with the default no-authentication endpoint, a remote peer can establish a session and trigger the responses; the same library also serves USB MIDI 2.0 hosts. Each discovery request causes the device to disclose 8 bytes of its own uninitialised stack memory to the peer, and the request is freely repeatable. This is a confidentiality-only information leak (root cause is use of an uninitialised variable, CWE-457/CWE-908); the leaked words could include residual data or pointer values. There is no memory-corruption, integrity, or availability impact. The fix zero-initialises both result structs (struct midi_ump res = {0};), so the trailing words are cleared before transmission. These are the only two responder builders that left trailing words unset (send_string() already zeroes its buffer), so the leak is fully closed.

Published Aug 24, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 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)+2
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+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
0.23%
ahead of 13% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
5.3
Medium · 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
Yes
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.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

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. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (info disclosure), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 4.3.0 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
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 3.9 1.4 vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — zephyr via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.23%

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for anomalous data read/export volumes and access to sensitive records.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsauthentication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • 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
  • CVSS changed · 5.3
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 24, 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
Info disclosure
same class
CWE-200
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • 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 1d
  • Medium CVE-2026-75084 Out-of-bounds write in the TI CC1200 IEEE 802.15.4 driver from an unvalidated radio-supplied packet length 1d
  • Medium CVE-2026-75085 Out-of-bounds read from received-frame length underflow in the STM32WBA IEEE 802.15.4 driver 1d
  • High CVE-2026-19673 Out-of-bounds read and net_buf length underflow in Zephyr Ethernet L2 when parsing a truncated VLAN header 1d
  • Medium CVE-2026-19940 Bluetooth HFP AG reuses a connection slot while a delayable work item is still armed, corrupting kernel timeout bookkeeping 2d
  • Medium 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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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-2026-13343 is "Uninitialised stack memory disclosure in the MIDI 2.0 UMP Stream responder", 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 5.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.23% 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.