CVE Intelligence
Low Memory corruption

CVE-2026-16512 — Out-of-bounds read in the Zephyr gPTP receive path when handling short Ethernet frames

gptp_handle_msg() in subsys/net/l2/ethernet/gptp/gptp.c dereferenced the gPTP header returned by GPTP_HDR() and switched on hdr->message_type without first checking that the received frame carries at least sizeof(struct gptp_hdr) (34) bytes of payload. The header accessor gptp_get_hdr() deliberately never fails for a short buffer — it returns pkt->frags->data and leaves validation to its callers — so a truncated frame produced a header pointer covering memory beyond the received data. The per-message-type checks that follow do not compensate: GPTP_VALID_LEN() reduces to len > 60 once the Ethernet header has been pulled, which is false for every fixed-size gPTP message, so GPTP_CHECK_LEN() never rejects a truncated SYNC, FOLLOWUP, PDELAY_RESP or SIGNALING message. The defect is reached by an unauthenticated peer on the same link sending an Ethernet frame with ethertype 0x88F7 to the PTP multicast address on an interface configured as a gPTP port, with CONFIG_NET_GPTP enabled. Because conformant Ethernet pads frames to 60 bytes, a payload shorter than 34 bytes generally requires a link that can deliver sub-minimum frames — for example the native_sim TAP driver (drivers/ethernet/eth_native_tap.c), which forwards whatever length the host device supplies, or a MAC configured to accept undersized frames. The short packet is retained (net_pkt_ref() into rcvd_sync_ptr, rcvd_follow_up_ptr, rcvd_pdelay_resp_ptr or rcvd_announce_ptr) and later parsed by the media-dependent and media-independent state machines in subsys/net/l2/ethernet/gptp/gptp_md.c and subsys/net/l2/ethernet/gptp/gptp_mi.c, which read tens of further bytes and copy some of them (the announce priority vector, hdr->port_id) into state that is subsequently transmitted. Under the default fixed-size buffer allocator (CONFIG_NET_BUF_FIXED_DATA_SIZE, 128-byte fragments) the accesses stay inside the allocated fragment and disclose stale recycled buffer contents; under the experimental CONFIG_NET_BUF_VARIABLE_DATA_SIZE allocator, where fragments are heap-allocated at the exact frame length, they are genuine out-of-bounds reads. There is no write and no availability impact.

Published Sep 18, 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

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
0.17%
ahead of 6% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
3.1
Low · 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.

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. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  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 ≥ 1.13.0 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
High
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
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:H/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-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
  • CVSS changed · 3.1
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 18, 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-2026-75084 Out-of-bounds write in the TI CC1200 IEEE 802.15.4 driver from an unvalidated radio-supplied packet length 2d
  • Medium CVE-2026-75085 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 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-2026-16512 is "Out-of-bounds read in the Zephyr gPTP receive path when handling short Ethernet frames", rated Low. It affects Zephyr (Zephyrproject); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 3.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.17% 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.