Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.24% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-12363High confidence
Out-of-bounds write in LoRaWAN fragmented transport from a fragment index of 0
zephyrproject · zephyr
4.2MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs zephyrproject zephyr and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
The LoRaWAN Fragmented Data Block Transport service (subsys/lorawan/services/frag_transport.c) does not validate the fragment counter in a received DATA_FRAGMENT command before forwarding it to the configured decoder. In frag_transport_package_callback() the value frag_counter = hdr->frag_index_n & 0x3FFF is taken directly from the downlink payload and passed to the decoder, which derives an array index and flash offset as frag_counter - 1. DataFragment fragments are 1-indexed, so a frag_counter of 0 underflows that arithmetic. With the default Semtech/LoRaMAC-node decoder, this reaches FragDecoder.FragNbMissingIndex[fragCounter - 1] = 0; in FragDecoderProcess(), where fragCounter - 1 evaluates to -1 and writes a uint16_t zero out of bounds, just before the array and into the adjacent MatrixM2B recovery-matrix state of the static decoder object (CWE-787). A companion write derives a wild flash offset, but that path is rejected by the flash_area_write() bounds check. The in-tree low-memory decoder (frag_dec()) is not corrupted: its out-of-range bit-array and flash accesses are caught by sys_bitarray_ and flash_area_ bounds checks. The handler is the registered downlink callback for the fragmentation transport port, reachable whenever an active fragmentation session exists, so the triggering byte is attacker-influenceable LoRaWAN/FUOTA network input. Triggering it requires authenticated downlinks (LoRaWAN MAC session keys or a malicious/compromised network or FUOTA server) and an active fragmentation session. The impact is contained: corruption of decoder state and denial of the firmware-update (FUOTA) session rather than controllable memory corruption or code execution. The fix adds a transport-layer check that rejects frag_counter == 0, closing the defect for both decoder backends.
What
The LoRaWAN Fragmented Data Block Transport service (subsys/lorawan/services/frag_transport.c) does not validate the fragment counter in a received DATA_FRAGMENT command before forwarding it to the configured decoder. In frag_transport_package_callback() the value frag_counter = hdr->frag_index_n & 0x3FFF is taken directly from the downlink payload and passed to the decoder, which derives an array index and flash offset as frag_counter - 1. DataFragment fragments are 1-indexed, so a frag_counter of 0 underflows that arithmetic. With the default Semtech/LoRaMAC-node decoder, this reaches FragDecoder.FragNbMissingIndex[fragCounter - 1] = 0; in FragDecoderProcess(), where fragCounter - 1 evaluates to -1 and writes a uint16_t zero out of bounds, just before the array and into the adjacent MatrixM2B recovery-matrix state of the static decoder object (CWE-787). A companion write derives a wild flash offset, but that path is rejected by the flash_area_write() bounds check. The in-tree low-memory decoder (frag_dec()) is not corrupted: its out-of-range bit-array and flash accesses are caught by sys_bitarray_ and flash_area_ bounds checks. The handler is the registered downlink callback for the fragmentation transport port, reachable whenever an active fragmentation session exists, so the triggering byte is attacker-influenceable LoRaWAN/FUOTA network input. Triggering it requires authenticated downlinks (LoRaWAN MAC session keys or a malicious/compromised network or FUOTA server) and an active fragmentation session. The impact is contained: corruption of decoder state and denial of the firmware-update (FUOTA) session rather than controllable memory corruption or code execution. The fix adds a transport-layer check that rejects frag_counter == 0, closing the defect for both decoder backends.
Why
A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The LoRaWAN Fragmented Data Block Transport service (subsys/lorawan/services/frag_transport.c) does not validate the fragment counter in a received DATA_FRAGMENT command before forwarding it to the configured decoder. In frag_transport_package_callback() the value frag_counter = hdr->frag_index_n & 0x3FFF is taken directly from the downlink payload and passed to the decoder, which derives an array index and flash offset as frag_counter - 1. DataFragment fragments are 1-indexed, so a frag_counter of 0 underflows that arithmetic. With the default Semtech/LoRaMAC-node decoder, this reaches FragDecoder.FragNbMissingIndex[fragCounter - 1] = 0; in FragDecoderProcess(), where fragCounter - 1 evaluates to -1 and writes a uint16_t zero out of bounds, just before the array and into the adjacent MatrixM2B recovery-matrix state of the static decoder object (CWE-787). A companion write derives a wild flash offset, but that path is rejected by the flash_area_write() bounds check. The in-tree low-memory decoder (frag_dec()) is not corrupted: its out-of-range bit-array and flash accesses are caught by sys_bitarray_ and flash_area_ bounds checks. The handler is the registered downlink callback for the fragmentation transport port, reachable whenever an active fragmentation session exists, so the triggering byte is attacker-influenceable LoRaWAN/FUOTA network input. Triggering it requires authenticated downlinks (LoRaWAN MAC session keys or a malicious/compromised network or FUOTA server) and an active fragmentation session. The impact is contained: corruption of decoder state and denial of the firmware-update (FUOTA) session rather than controllable memory corruption or code execution. The fix adds a transport-layer check that rejects frag_counter == 0, closing the defect for both decoder backends.
Why
A bounds error lets data be written beyond the intended memory region, potentially corrupting control data.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- an adjacent network → Out-of-bounds Write → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-787 ↗
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write. The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ALowAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- zephyr: 3.7.0 < 4.5.0
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 14 Aug 2026 · Last source change 14 Aug 2026, 19:26 UTC · CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-23
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-58749
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: removed patch: github.com/452c704a28369236e555543c61a1894cd1a4afbb; removed remediation: github.com/452c704a28369236e555543c61a1894cd1a4afbb.CNA ↗
- Before
- patch: github.com/452c704a28369236e555543c61a1894cd1a4afbb · remediation: github.com/452c704a28369236e555543c61a1894cd1a4afbb
- After
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 3.7.0 < 4.5.0 · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
- After
- 3.7.0 < 4.5.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Patch available to Awaiting fix.CNA ↗
- Before
- Patch available
- After
- Awaiting fix
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.