CVE-2026-12236
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 Bluetooth host GATT client function parse_read_std_char_desc() in subsys/bluetooth/host/gatt.c parses an ATT Read By Type Response received from a remote GATT server during BT_GATT_DISCOVER_STD_CHAR_DESC discovery. The per-entry stride rsp->len is taken directly from the peer's PDU, and the parse loop both tests its exit condition (length >= rsp->len) and advances (length -= rsp->len, pdu += rsp->len) using that value. The minimum value of rsp->len was never validated before the loop. A malicious or malfunctioning peer can reply with rsp->len = 0. Because length is unsigned and never decreases, the loop condition stays true forever and the read pointer never advances; as long as the body is at least a few bytes with a non-zero handle and a matching descriptor UUID, the host repeatedly re-parses the same bytes and invokes the discovery callback, never terminating. This hangs the Bluetooth host processing thread (CWE-835, loop with unreachable exit condition). The condition is reachable by any connected peer once the local device initiates standard-descriptor-value discovery; GATT discovery does not require bonding or encryption, so an unauthenticated adjacent attacker that the device connects to can trigger it. The impact is denial of service of the Bluetooth subsystem (and likely a watchdog reset on constrained targets); there is no memory disclosure or corruption. The fix adds a rsp->len < sizeof(struct bt_att_data) check before the loop, rejecting under-length responses so the stride is always non-zero and the loop terminates. The sibling parsers parse_include() and parse_characteristic() already validated rsp->len and are unaffected.
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 analysisCrafted input drives a loop whose exit condition is never satisfied, hanging the thread and starving the service of the resource it occupies. A single request can be enough to take a worker down. Remediation is bounding iteration counts and validating the conditions that are supposed to terminate the loop.
General guidance for the infinite loop class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $4,000. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-12236 — 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-2026-12236 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