CVE-2021-22680
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 · uneditedNXP MQX Versions 5.1 and prior are vulnerable to integer overflow in mem_alloc, _lwmem_alloc and _partition functions. This unverified memory assignment can lead to arbitrary memory allocation, resulting in unexpected behavior such as a crash or a remote code injection/execution.
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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerabilities exist in memory allocation functions (mem_alloc, _lwmem_alloc, and _partition) within NXP MQX RTOS versions 5.1 and prior. The overflow allows unverified memory assignment that can result in arbitrary memory allocation, enabling crashes or remote code injection/execution due to the critical 9.8 CVSS score.
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<= 5.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 NXP MQX RTOS deploymentSearch system files, firmware images, or build documentation for 'NXP MQX', 'MQX RTOS', or 'Freescale MQX' strings to confirm the RTOS is present in your environmentAffected if NXP MQX RTOS is not found in your environment - you are not affected
-
Determine the installed MQX versionCheck version strings in firmware binaries, RTOS image headers, build configuration files (such as version.h, bsp.h, or MQX version definition files), or consult device/system documentation that references the MQX versionAffected if The version cannot be determined or is confirmed to be 5.1 or lower - you may be affected
-
Verify version against affected rangeCompare your identified MQX version to the affected range: versions 5.1 and prior are vulnerable. Look for version indicators such as MQX_5_1, MQX_5_0, or earlier release numbersAffected if Your MQX version is 5.1 or any earlier version - you are affected
-
Confirm memory allocation functions are in useInspect compiled firmware or library files for calls to mem_alloc, _lwmem_alloc, or _partition functions. These are standard MQX memory allocation APIs typically used by heap management modulesAffected if These memory allocation functions are present and used in your system - the integer overflow condition can be triggered
You are affected if NXP MQX RTOS version 5.1 or prior is deployed and the mem_alloc, _lwmem_alloc, or _partition functions are present and utilized in your system.
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 dataUpgrade NXP MQX to a version beyond 5.1 that contains the patched integer overflow validation in the memory allocation functions. For systems that cannot update immediately, implement input validation and bounds checking on allocation size parameters.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-22680 — 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-2021-22680 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