CVE-2026-19571

MEDIUMPre-NVD 6.76.7
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This medium-severity CVE scores 6.7 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: <0.1% (below the 1st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this week
6.7EG
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: <0.1%CVSS: 6.7Exploit: 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 ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend (subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/backends/ec_host_cmd_backend_shi_ite.c) copied the 8-byte host-command request header from the SPI Rx FIFO directly into the shared receive buffer data->in_msg and only afterwards checked the protocol version and the derived packet length. The interrupt handler also accepted a chip-select assertion and an Rx-valid-length (RVLI) interrupt in any driver state other than SHI_STATE_DISABLED, so a new header could be parsed while the host-command thread was still processing the previous request out of the very same buffer.

The host processor is the SPI controller and drives both chip select and the clock. After sending a well-formed request it can immediately de-assert chip select — which returns the driver to the ready state and re-enables the FIFO — and start a second transaction carrying a header with data_len = 0xFFFF. Those eight bytes are written into in_msg before the oversized length is rejected, so they land in a buffer whose contents verify_rx() in subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/ec_host_cmd_handler.c has already validated. If this lands in the window before the host-command thread executes args.input_buf_size = rx_header->data_len, the framework hands the registered command handler a 65535-byte input length over a 256-byte buffer.

The result is an out-of-bounds read of up to roughly 64 KiB beyond the request buffer: command handlers that copy or echo input_buf_size bytes disclose adjacent embedded-controller memory back to the host or overflow the response buffer, and a read past the end of SRAM faults the controller. The same race also allows cmd_id and cmd_ver to be swapped after checksum verification and after handler lookup. Exploitation requires the ability to drive the inter-processor SHI bus (a compromised host OS or physical access to the SPI lines) and winning a timing race, which the SPI controller can retry indefinitely.

The fix parses the header into a local struct ec_host_cmd_request_header and copies it into in_msg only after the length has been bounded by sizeof(data->in_msg), and ignores chip-select and RVLI interrupts outside SHI_STATE_READY_TO_RECV/SHI_STATE_RECEIVING. A residual, bounded race remains: an end-of-transaction interrupt still resets the state to ready while the host-command thread owns the buffer, so a valid second request can still overwrite the in-flight request's contents, unlike the NPCX backend which parks in SHI_STATE_CNL_RESP_NOT_RDY while the buffer is in use.

CVSS v3
6.7
EG Score
6.7MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
30
EG Risk 30/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity67% × 45%
The EG Score, 6.7 of 10.
Exploitation<0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
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.
Action: 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.
EPSS PROB
<0.1%
EPSS %ILE
below the 1st
KEV
Not listed

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

Published

October 9, 2026

Last Modified

October 9, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Oct 9, 2026
Fix referenced — no release confirmed yet. Sources: github_commit, github.
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Race condition in ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend lets a second SPI request write an unvalidated length into the in-flight request buffer · Advisory · zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr · GitHub

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-4x98-6536-cwjv
GitHub commit

commit 0636e65c825e (zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr)

Fix landed in zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr commit 0636e65c825e — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/0636e65c825e810ad97f154606365870152d402f

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 12× in last 7d / 12× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-11 20:06 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-11 16:34 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-11 14:51 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · below the 1st percentile
  5. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · below the 1st percentile
  6. 2026-10-10 17:34 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · below the 1st percentile
  8. 2026-10-09 18:35 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-09 18:04 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-09 08:28 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-09 07:34 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 6.7 MEDIUM
  12. 2026-10-09 07:33 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-19571?
CVE-2026-19571 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 9, 2026. The ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend (subsys/mgmt/echostcmd/backends/echostcmdbackendshiite.c) copied the 8-byte host-command request header from the SPI Rx FIFO directly into the shared receive buffer data->inmsg and only afterwards checked the protocol version and the derived packet length.…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-19571 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-19571 was published on October 9, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 9, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-19571 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-19571 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a <0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (below the 1st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-19571?
CVE-2026-19571 has a CVSS base score of 6.7 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-19571?
A fix for CVE-2026-19571 is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but EchelonGraph has no release containing it on record. Check that reference and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains the fix and update to it; until then, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-19571

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-19571?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.