CVE Intelligence
Medium Memory corruption exploit reference

CVE-2026-13479 — Out-of-bounds read in LoRaWAN clock-sync AppTimeAns downlink handler

The LoRaWAN application-layer clock-synchronization service parses downlinks in clock_sync_package_callback() (subsys/lorawan/services/clock_sync.c). Its command loop only guarantees that the one-byte command id is in bounds; for the CLOCK_SYNC_CMD_APP_TIME (AppTimeAns) command the handler then reads a 4-byte time correction via sys_get_le32() plus a 1-byte token without checking that 5 bytes remain in the receive buffer (len - rx_pos). A short or crafted AppTimeAns therefore reads up to 5 bytes past the end of the decrypted payload. The payload (rx_buf/len) is the decrypted application frame delivered to the registered downlink callback (mcps_indication->Buffer/BufferSize). Reaching the handler requires a frame on the clock-sync port that passes LoRaWAN's MAC integrity check and FRMPayload decryption, so the practical attacker is a malicious or compromised network/application server (the designated sender of AppTimeAns) or a party holding the session keys, rather than an arbitrary radio listener. The over-read is bounded: the backing store is a fixed 255-byte static buffer, so the few stray bytes do not fault, and the read values (time_correction, token) are used only internally and never transmitted, so there is no disclosure to the attacker and no crash. The sole effect is that a stale token matching ctx.req_token can apply a garbage time_correction to the device's own clock offset (ctx.time_offset), a minor integrity impact confined to the victim's time estimate. The fix adds an explicit length check that drops a too-short AppTimeAns. Note the sibling one-byte reads in the periodicity and force-resync handlers remain unguarded with the same negligible impact.

Published Aug 26, 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)+2
  • 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
0.24%
ahead of 13% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
4.3
Medium · 3 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 (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 3.3.0 and < 4.4.2 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 3.3.0 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
Adjacent
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
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
4.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 1.4 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
3.1 CVSS 3.1 Low 1.6 1.4 vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
3.1 CVSS 3.1 Low — — zephyr via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N (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 4.3 (NVD (NIST)) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

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

  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
endpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • 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 · 4.3
    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
    Aug 26, 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
CWE-125
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 2d
  • Medium CVE-2026-75085 Out-of-bounds read from received-frame length underflow in the STM32WBA IEEE 802.15.4 driver 2d
  • 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
  • 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-2026-13479 is "Out-of-bounds read in LoRaWAN clock-sync AppTimeAns downlink handler", 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 4.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.24% 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.