CVE-2020-13598
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedFS: Buffer Overflow when enabling Long File Names in FAT_FS and calling fs_stat. Zephyr versions >= v1.14.2, >= v2.3.0 contain Stack-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-121). For more information, see https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-7fhv-rgxr-x56h
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Zephyr RTOS's FAT_FS implementation. When Long File Names (LFN) are enabled and the fs_stat function is called, the code fails to properly bounds-check buffer allocation, leading to overflow onto the stack. This can potentially allow code execution or denial of service via malformed filesystem stat operations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.14.2>= 2.0.0, <= 2.3.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the Zephyr version in your buildLocate the version file in your Zephyr installation (such as VERSION file in the top-level Zephyr directory) or check the version reported by the build systemAffected if The version is 1.14.2 or earlier, or falls between 2.0.0 and 2.3.0 inclusive
-
Confirm FAT_FS filesystem support is enabledExamine your build configuration (defconfig, prj.conf, or .config) for CONFIG_FAT_FILESYSTEMS or similar Kconfig options that enable FAT filesystem supportAffected if FAT filesystem support is enabled in your configuration
-
Verify Long File Name (LFN) support is enabled in FAT_FSLook in your build configuration for CONFIG_FS_FATFS_LFN or equivalent option that enables Long File Name support in the FAT filesystem driverAffected if LFN support is explicitly enabled in your FAT_FS configuration
-
Confirm usage of fs_stat functionReview your application source code and verify if the fs_stat() function or equivalent stat operations are being called on FAT filesystem pathsAffected if Your code calls fs_stat() or related stat functions on FAT filesystem objects
You are affected if your Zephyr version falls within the vulnerable range, FAT_FS with LFN is enabled, and your code invokes fs_stat on FAT filesystem paths.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataDisable Long File Names (LFN) support in FAT_FS configuration if possible, or upgrade to a patched Zephyr version that properly bounds-checks buffer sizes in the fs_stat function for LFN handling.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13598 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-13598 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data