CVE-2026-9771
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 flash_copy() system call is verified by z_vrfy_flash_copy() in drivers/flash/flash_util.c. On builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled, this handler is the kernel-side trust boundary for a user-mode caller. Prior to the fix it validated only the output buffer (K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE) and passed the two struct device * arguments, src_dev and dst_dev, directly into the implementation without any object validation — unlike every sibling flash syscall, which guards its device pointer with K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH. A user-mode thread fully controls the values of src_dev/dst_dev and the contents of its own address space. The implementation z_impl_flash_copy() dereferences these pointers and calls through their driver-API function tables (e.g. api->get_parameters(dst_dev), flash_read(src_dev, ...), flash_write(dst_dev, ...)). By supplying a pointer to a forged struct device whose api table contains attacker-chosen function pointers, an unprivileged thread can cause the kernel to call arbitrary code in supervisor mode; passing any arbitrary or invalid address otherwise yields a kernel crash or out-of-bounds read. The result is a local privilege escalation out of the userspace sandbox (with kernel denial-of-service and information disclosure as lesser outcomes). The fix adds K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(src_dev, read) and K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(dst_dev, write) to z_vrfy_flash_copy(), which verify each device is a registered flash-driver kernel object the calling thread is permitted to use before any dereference, closing the path completely.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/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 · scoped- Apply the patch to drivers/flash/flash_util.c that adds K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(src_dev, read) validation before the src_dev pointer is dereferenced in z_vrfy_flash_copy()
- Apply the patch that adds K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(dst_dev, write) validation before the dst_dev pointer is dereferenced
- Rebuild the Zephyr kernel with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled to include the fix
- Verify the fix by reviewing the updated z_vrfy_flash_copy() function in flash_util.c to confirm both device pointers are properly validated before use
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
There 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 $4,900. 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-2026-9771 — 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-2026-9771 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