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.
CVE-2026-7656
This medium-severity CVE scores 6.8 under NVD CVSS v3. EPSS exploit probability: 0.2%, top 89% of all CVEs by exploit prediction. GitHub Security Advisory data not yet ingested — confidence will rise once GHSA publishes (typical lag: hours to days for open-source ecosystem CVEs; never for infrastructure-only CVEs).
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.
- CVSS v3
- 6.8
- EG Score
- 6.8(medium)
- EPSS
- 10.6%
- KEV
- Not listed
Published
June 29, 2026
Last Modified
July 6, 2026
Advisory Details (2)
Auto-updated Jun 30, 2026Bypassed hop_limit and source address validation due to incorrect operator precedence · Advisory · zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr · GitHub
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-cpjw-rvwx-ph9fcommit 095f064c94b9 (zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr)
Fix landed in zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr commit 095f064c94b9 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/095f064c94b95f9c35e05602e693dc268f0cb865Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 21× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)
Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.
- 2026-07-11 20:05 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-10 20:55 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-09 21:45 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-09 19:10 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-09 19:10 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-08 22:35 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-08 15:16 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-08 15:16 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-07 23:25 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-07 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-07 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-07 00:16 UTCEG score recompute▼ 1.30
- 2026-07-06 21:35 UTCNVD updateCVSS v3 → 6.8 · severity → MEDIUM
- 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-06 12:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-06 01:36 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-05 14:18 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-05 02:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-05 02:31 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-05 02:30 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-04 15:39 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-04 06:31 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 14 moreShow fewer
- 2026-07-04 06:31 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-04 04:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-03 16:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-03 05:39 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-02 18:20 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-02 07:02 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-01 19:41 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-01 15:07 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-07-01 08:23 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-06-30 23:22 UTCEPSS rescore
- 2026-06-30 21:04 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-06-30 09:43 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-06-29 22:25 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-06-29 22:24 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Same CWE
10 shownCWE-290 · CWE-670
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-7656?
When was CVE-2026-7656 disclosed?
Is CVE-2026-7656 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-7656?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-7656?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-7656
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-7656?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.