EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 5.9Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
The OCPP 1.6 client in subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp.c reconstructs a session handle and PDU id from the uid field of a CALLRESULT message. In ocpp_process_server_msg() the code calls atoi(strtok_r(uid, "-", &tmp)) without checking the strtok_r return value. When the server-supplied uid is empty or contains no - delimiter, strtok_r() returns NULL and atoi(NULL) dereferences a NULL pointer, which is undefined behaviour.
The uid originates from network data: parse_rpc_msg() in subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp_j.c JSON-parses a frame received from the OCPP central system over TCP/WebSocket and copies the server-controlled string into the local buffer. A malicious or compromised central system, or a man-in-the-middle on a non-TLS ws:// connection, can return a malformed uid to reach the defect. No authentication beyond the existing server connection (or MITM position) is required, and the reconstructed pointer is membership-validated by ocpp_session_is_valid(), so the impact is limited to the NULL dereference rather than arbitrary pointer use.
On Zephyr targets that trap access to address 0 (MMU/MPU platforms or CONFIG_NULL_POINTER_EXCEPTION_DETECTION), the dereference faults inside the OCPP reader thread and invokes the fatal handler, producing a remote denial of service of the charge point; on bare targets where address 0 is readable the call returns 0 and is benign, so the impact is availability-only and platform-conditional.
The applied fix guards only the first atoi(); the second strtok_r(NULL, "-", &tmp) followed by pdu = atoi(buf) in the same function remains unguarded and the identical NULL dereference is still reachable from the same network input when the uid has a first token but no second --delimited token. A complete fix should validate the second token as well.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it and apply that within your standard update timelines; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it