CVE-2026-82390 — Cross-session AES key confusion in the Espressif ESP32 hardware crypto driver
The Espressif AES driver drivers/crypto/crypto_esp32_aes.c advertises a multi-session cipher API — it hands out up to CONFIG_ESP32_CRYPTO_AES_SESSIONS_MAX (default 4) independent sessions, each carrying its own key and direction. The AES peripheral, however, has a single chip-global set of key and mode registers, and aes_begin_session() programmed them exactly once, at session start, outside the aes_lock mutex that serialises the transforms. The per-operation handlers aes_ecb_op(), aes_cbc_op() and aes_ctr_op() then ran aes_hal_transform_block() against whatever key and direction the registers happened to hold. As a result, once a second session is opened with a different key, every subsequent operation on the first session silently uses the second session's key and direction, and no error is reported. Because the key programming happened outside the lock, the correct usage pattern of "each thread does begin, then op, then free on its own session" also races: a second thread's cipher_begin_session() landing between the first thread's begin and its operation makes that operation run under the second thread's key. An attacker who can induce session creation on the device — for example a protocol peer whose connection causes a session key to be installed — can influence which key is resident when a victim operation runs. The impact is a cryptographic failure rather than memory corruption: data the application believed it was protecting under one key is encrypted or decrypted under another. Where the resident key is one the attacker knows or supplied, the affected plaintext becomes recoverable by that attacker, and the operation's direction (encrypt versus decrypt) can likewise be inverted. Exposure requires an application that holds two or more concurrent sessions with different keys against this driver; no in-tree Zephyr subsystem does so today (the 802.15.4 security layer, which does open two sessions, uses CCM mode, which this driver rejects), so the risk falls on application code that uses the documented multi-session API. The fix removes all hardware access from aes_begin_session() and reprograms the key and direction at the top of every operation, inside aes_lock, so the chip-global registers can no longer be observed stale by another session.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
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.
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.
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.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Zephyrproject Zephyr).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (logic error), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.7 | CVSS 3.1 | Low | 2.2 | 1.4 | vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 3.7 | CVSS 3.1 | Low | — | — | 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:N/A:N (score shown at the top: vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 27, 2026 → Oct 29, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.20%
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).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Source status changed · Received → Awaiting Analysis
- Affected products added · zephyrproject/zephyr
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 3.7
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 26, 2026 – Oct 26, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 26, 2026 – Oct 26, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-82961 Unvalidated pin index in GPIO syscall handlers allows out-of-bounds kernel writes from user mode 2d
- Medium CVE-2026-82962 Out-of-bounds write in Zephyr Ethernet L2 when adding the link-layer header to a forwarded packet 2d
- Medium CVE-2026-82388 Use of a released HFP HF object after a failed RFCOMM connect in the Bluetooth Classic host 4d
- High CVE-2026-81038 Bluetooth OTS server discloses uninitialized stack memory in failed Calculate Checksum responses 4d
- Medium CVE-2026-81039 Bluetooth Host connection reservation leak when multiple connectable advertising sets share an identity 4d
- 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 4d
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-2026-82390 is "Cross-session AES key confusion in the Espressif ESP32 hardware crypto driver", 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 3.7 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.20% 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.