EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: 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 user-mode syscall verifiers z_vrfy_fuel_gauge_get_props() and z_vrfy_fuel_gauge_set_props() in drivers/fuel_gauge/fuel_gauge_syscall_handlers.c declared two variable-length arrays, union fuel_gauge_prop_val k_vals[len] and fuel_gauge_prop_t k_props[len], sized directly by the caller-supplied len argument. len is an unvalidated size_t taken straight from the syscall ABI, and the VLAs were allocated before any check at all — including before the K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FUEL_GAUGE() object-permission check. The subsequent k_usermode_from_copy() calls validated only that the user source buffer was readable; the kernel destination was never bounds-checked, since it was sized by the same attacker-chosen len.
Any thread running in user mode with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled can invoke fuel_gauge_get_props() or fuel_gauge_set_props() with a large len. This first displaces the supervisor stack pointer by an arbitrary attacker-chosen amount — Zephyr does not build with stack-clash probing, so the displacement itself does not fault, and the nested calls made by the verifier then write frames below the privileged stack. If the caller has been granted access to a fuel-gauge device object, the memcpy inside k_usermode_from_copy() additionally writes len * sizeof(union fuel_gauge_prop_val) bytes of fully attacker-controlled data starting well below the stack base. CONFIG_PRIVILEGED_STACK_SIZE defaults to 1024 bytes, so a len of roughly 170 already exhausts it.
The result is an out-of-bounds write in supervisor mode with attacker-controlled length and, on the permitted path, attacker-controlled content — a break out of the user-mode sandbox into kernel memory, leading to kernel code execution or a system crash. A stack guard region does not contain it, because the copy begins below the guard and walks upward, corrupting unprotected memory before the guard is reached. The fix removes the kernel-side copies entirely and validates the caller's arrays in place with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_ARRAY_READ() / K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_ARRAY_WRITE(), which also handle the len * size multiplication overflow; this is safe because neither fuel_gauge_prop_t nor union fuel_gauge_prop_val contains embedded pointers.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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