Predictive Vulnerability Intelligence.

Product

  • Product
  • Pricing
  • Documentation

Company

  • About
  • Partnerships
  • Blog
  • Support

Legal

  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Data Licensing

© 2026 FAUCET Technologies LLC. All rights reserved.

CVE-2026-7656

34
FAUCET Score

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery handlers in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c (handle_ra_input, handle_ns_input, handle_na_input) used an incorrect boolean expression that combined the RFC 4861 validity checks with the ICMPv6 code check using the wrong operator precedence: the form was '((length/hop/source/target checks) && (icmp_hdr->code != 0))'. Because every legitimate ND message carries ICMPv6 code 0, an attacker setting code == 0 (the normal value) caused the entire predicate to evaluate false, so the packet was never dropped and all of the other checks were silently skipped. The bypassed checks include the mandatory Hop Limit == 255 verification (which proves an ND packet originated on-link and was not forwarded) and, for Router Advertisements, the requirement that the source be a link-local address, as well as multicast-target sanity checks. As a result, an adjacent on-link attacker — and, because the Hop-Limit-255 guard is bypassed, potentially a remote/off-link attacker whose packets would otherwise be rejected — can have forged Router Advertisement, Neighbor Solicitation, and Neighbor Advertisement messages accepted. A forged RA lets the attacker reconfigure the victim's default router, on-link prefixes (SLAAC), MTU, reachable/retransmit timers, and (with CONFIG_NET_IPV6_RA_RDNSS) DNS servers, while forged NS/NA enable neighbor-cache poisoning, enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic redirection, and denial of service. The flaw is an input-validation/authentication weakness rather than a memory-safety issue: the underlying packet-parsing primitives (net_pkt_get_data, net_pkt_read, net_pkt_skip) are independently bounds-safe and the validated 'length' is the true buffer length, so skipping the length check causes no out-of-bounds access. The defect has existed since the logic was introduced in 2018 and shipped in all releases through v4.4.0; it is fixed by splitting the condition so any failing check drops the packet.

First published: Jun 29, 2026Last modified: Jul 17, 2026

Impacted Technologies

VendorProductVersion(s)CPE
<= 4.4.1CPE matchmatch criteria
cpe:2.3:o:zephyrproject:zephyr:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
>= 1.14.0, < 4.5.0CPE match
cpe:2.3:o:zephyrproject:zephyr:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

CVSS Data

CVSS version used by this source: 3.1

8.1HIGH

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector
ADJACENT_NETWORK
Attack Complexity
LOW
Privileges Required
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality Impact
NONE
Integrity Impact
HIGH
Availability Impact
HIGH
Exploitability Score
2.8
Impact Score
5.2
CvssVersion
3.1

Exploit Intelligence

EPSS Score
0.31%
Probability of exploitation in next 30 days
EPSS Percentile
23.6%
Percentile rank of EPSS score among Peer Group
As of 2026-07-25
Model: v2026.06.15
This CVE's current EPSS score of 0.0031 is in the 86th percentile among its peer group of 1,749 CVEs.

Social Chatter

The average CVE in this peer group has 0.0 Twitter, 0.0 Reddit, 0.0 Bluesky, 0.0 Mastodon, and 0.0 GitHub mentions.

Media Mentions

No media coverage found for this CVE.

The average CVE in this peer group has 0.1 InfoSec Media, 0.0 Vendor Blog, and 0.0 Security Researcher mentions.

Remediation

Patch Available

Vendor Patches (1)

github_advisorypatch availablevia nvd_reference
View patch

References

github.com / zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/095f064c94b95f9c35e05602e693dc268f0cb865
Patch
github.com / zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-cpjw-rvwx-ph9f
ExploitPatchVendor Advisory