CVE Intelligence
Medium

CVE-2026-79980 — Predictable and reused DHCPv4 transaction identifier allows spoofed DHCP replies to reconfigure gateway and DNS

The DHCPv4 client in subsys/net/lib/dhcpv4/dhcpv4.c maintained its transaction identifier (iface->config.dhcpv4.xid) as a counter rather than as a per-transaction random value. It was seeded once with sys_rand32_get() in dhcpv4_start_internal(), incremented by one in dhcpv4_send_discover() and dhcpv4_send_decline(), and never changed by dhcpv4_send_request() — so every RENEWING and REBINDING exchange reused, unchanged, the identifier that had already appeared on the wire in the broadcast DHCPDISCOVER at boot, and where the identifier did move it moved predictably by one. RFC 2131 4.1 requires a single identifier per transaction, chosen so that clients are unlikely to collide. This identifier is the client's only unpredictable reply-validation token. net_dhcpv4_input() accepts a BOOTP reply on op, a matching xid, and a matching chaddr (the interface MAC, which is public); the UDP callback is registered with a wildcard remote address and port, and no server-identifier or source-address check is applied. An attacker who learns one identifier — for example any host on the same segment that sees the broadcast DHCPDISCOVER, or a DHCP server or relay on a network the device previously joined — therefore retains a valid token for the device's whole uptime, and can predict the identifiers of later exchanges, without having to observe the unicast renew traffic or race the legitimate server. A forged reply that passes those checks has effect regardless of client state, because dhcpv4_parse_options() applies its side effects before the state machine gate in dhcpv4_handle_reply(): the router option calls net_if_ipv4_set_gw() and the DNS option calls dns_resolve_reconfigure(). A single accepted datagram can thus repoint the device's default gateway and resolvers at attacker-controlled addresses, redirecting its traffic; during RENEWING or REBINDING a forged DHCPACK re-binds the lease with attacker-chosen parameters and a forged DHCPNAK removes the address and restarts configuration. The fix draws a fresh sys_rand32_get() value at each point where a transaction begins — entering SELECTING, RENEWING and REBINDING, and at the INIT/INIT-REBOOT entry taken when an interface with a lease goes down — while REQUESTING and DECLINE keep the identifier of the exchange they belong to, as RFC 2131 requires. As a side effect the client also no longer discards a slow server's offer after retransmitting a discover, and the initial-discover backoff now draws its own randomness instead of deriving it from the identifier.

Published Oct 23, 2026 · Updated Oct 26, 2026 · Sources: CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, NIST National Vulnerability Database · 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 (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
0.17%
ahead of 7% of scored CVEs · Oct 29, 2026
Affects
Zephyrproject
Zephyr
CVSS base
5.6
Medium · 2 source(s)

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, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zephyrproject Zephyr ≥ 1.7.0 and < 4.5.0 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
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.6 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.2 3.4 vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.6 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — zephyr via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L (score shown at the top: vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-340

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 24, 2026 → Oct 29, 2026 · 6 reading(s) · max 0.28%

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).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Source status changed · Received → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 26, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · Published → Received
    Oct 23, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record published
    Oct 23, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 5.6
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · → Published
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 23, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • CVE published
    Oct 23, 2026 · zephyr

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 23, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Zephyrproject
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-340
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • High CVE-2026-82961 Unvalidated pin index in GPIO syscall handlers allows out-of-bounds kernel writes from user mode 1d
  • Medium CVE-2026-82962 Out-of-bounds write in Zephyr Ethernet L2 when adding the link-layer header to a forwarded packet 1d
  • Medium CVE-2026-82388 Use of a released HFP HF object after a failed RFCOMM connect in the Bluetooth Classic host 3d
  • High CVE-2026-81038 Bluetooth OTS server discloses uninitialized stack memory in failed Calculate Checksum responses 3d
  • Medium CVE-2026-81039 Bluetooth Host connection reservation leak when multiple connectable advertising sets share an identity 3d
  • Medium CVE-2026-82389 Bluetooth Classic HFP AG wipes an object still linked in the SDP request list on connect failure, causing a NULL dereference 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 CISA SSVC assessment.
  • 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-2026-79980 is "Predictable and reused DHCPv4 transaction identifier allows spoofed DHCP replies to reconfigure gateway and DNS", 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 5.6 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.