CVE-2026-10678
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 · uneditedThe MCTP-over-I2C+GPIO target binding in Zephyr (subsys/pmci/mctp/mctp_i2c_gpio_target.c) processes pseudo-register writes from an I2C bus master byte-by-byte in mctp_i2c_gpio_target_write_received() without validating the order or the receive buffer. In the affected versions the MCTP_I2C_GPIO_RX_MSG_ADDR (data) handler dereferences and writes through b->rx_pkt without checking that the receive buffer was allocated: a controller that selects the data register and writes a byte without first sending the length register (which is what allocates the buffer) causes a write of an attacker-chosen byte through a NULL/unallocated mctp_pktbuf pointer (i.e. into a small attacker-advanceable offset above address 0), producing memory corruption or a hard fault. The same handler also performs a write-then-check bounds test, allowing a one-byte heap overflow at data[255] when more than 255 data bytes are sent. Because the I2C target callback is invoked with raw bytes supplied by whatever device is the bus master and the binding performs no authentication, a malicious or malfunctioning controller on the bus can trigger these without any prior protocol state, leading to memory corruption and/or denial of service on the target device. The vulnerable code was introduced when the I2C+GPIO target binding was added and shipped in Zephyr v4.3.0 and v4.4.0. The fix defers allocation to the first data byte with a NULL check, treats a missing length as a zero-sized packet rejected by libmctp, and moves the bounds check before the store.
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 · low confidenceAffected 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>= 4.3.0, <= 4.4.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
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.
dbcve · scopedZephyr v4.5.0 or later (the first release after v4.4.0 containing the fix)
- 1. Identify the Zephyr version currently in use by checking the manifest file (west.yml or zephyr.yml) or running `west info` or checking the `VERSION` file in the Zephyr tree
- 2. If using Zephyr v4.3.0 or v4.4.0, upgrade to a version that includes the fix for this vulnerability
- 3. Obtain the fixed Zephyr release from the official Zephyr project repository at github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr
- 4. Update the west manifest to point to the fixed version tag or commit hash
- 5. Run `west update` to fetch the fixed code
- 6. Rebuild the firmware with `west build` to verify the fix compiles correctly
- 7. Flash the updated firmware to the target device
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10678 — 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-2026-10678 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