CVE-2026-12634
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 NVS backend of the Zephyr settings subsystem (subsys/settings/src/settings_nvs.c) reads stored setting-name entries into fixed 74-byte stack buffers and NUL-terminates them with buf[rc] = '\0', where rc is the return value of nvs_read(). Per its contract, nvs_read() returns the full stored entry length (wlk_ate.len), which can exceed the supplied buffer length — only MIN(len, stored_len) bytes are actually copied, but the return value may be much larger, bounded only by the NVS sector size. Three sites (settings_nvs_cache_match(), settings_nvs_load(), and settings_nvs_save()) used this value directly as the NUL index without clamping, so an oversized stored name entry causes a single \0 byte to be written past the end of the stack buffer at an attacker-influenced offset (CWE-787). The oversized entry cannot arise through the normal settings API, where names are bounded by SETTINGS_MAX_NAME_LEN. It requires an actor able to write the flash that backs the settings partition — a co-resident or untrusted component sharing the flash device, a malicious settings image/restore, or offline/physical flash access (a shared-flash threat model). The malformed entry is parsed when settings_load() runs at boot or subsystem init, or during settings_save(). The out-of-bounds write is a single NUL byte at an offset equal to the crafted entry length (up to the NVS sector size), so the practical impact is a crash or denial of service and limited stack corruption rather than reliable code execution. There is no confidentiality impact, and the path is not reachable from the network through the ordinary settings interface. The fix skips any entry whose nvs_read() length is greater than or equal to the buffer size before performing the NUL 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 analysisThe program writes past the bounds of a buffer, overwriting adjacent memory an attacker can turn to their advantage. Crafted input can overwrite control data and redirect execution. Remediation is validating every index and length before a write, plus modern memory-safety mitigations.
General guidance for the out-of-bounds write 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 dataScan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-12634 — 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-2026-12634 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