EchelonGraph verdictMonitorNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%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 Bluetooth host's GATT client passed the value of a received Handle Value Notification, Handle Value Indication or Multiple Handle Value Notification to bt_gatt_subscribe_params::notify callbacks using only the length derived from the received ATT PDU. bt_att_recv() in subsys/bluetooth/host/att.c validates only a minimum PDU length and does not enforce the negotiated ATT MTU, and the fixed ATT L2CAP channel in subsys/bluetooth/host/l2cap.c applies no rx.mtu check either, so the only ceiling was the ACL reassembly buffer CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE. Values longer than the 512-octet maximum attribute length defined by the Bluetooth Core Specification (Vol 3, Part F, Section 3.2.9) could therefore be handed to subscribers that size their buffers to that documented limit.
A remote peer that a device has connected and subscribed to — a malicious, spoofed or compromised GATT server within radio range — triggers the flaw by sending a notification or indication whose value exceeds 512 octets on a subscribed handle. In the LE Audio unicast client this reaches a concrete out-of-bounds write: unicast_client_ep_notify() in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_unicast_client.c copies the notification into the 512-byte att_buf of struct unicast_client with net_buf_simple_add_mem() and no tailroom check whenever length equals bt_audio_get_max_ntf_size(), i.e. the negotiated ATT MTU minus three. notify_handler() in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c has the same shape. Reaching the overflow requires a build whose ATT MTU exceeds 515 octets (CONFIG_BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU and CONFIG_BT_BUF_ACL_RX_SIZE set for full-length attribute support); the shipped defaults are far smaller.
The overflow writes peer-controlled bytes past att_buf directly over the adjacent struct net_buf_simple net_buf — its data, __buf, len and size fields — which the subsequent long-read accumulation then uses as its destination, turning a small linear overflow into a controlled write. net_buf_simple_add() only asserts on insufficient tailroom unless CONFIG_NET_BUF_HARDENING is enabled, and that option is disabled by default, so ordinary production builds perform the copy. Beyond the in-tree LE Audio clients, any application subscriber that sized its receive buffer to the specification's 512-octet limit was exposed to the same overflow.
The fix rejects notification, indication and multiple-notification values longer than BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN in call_notify_cb_and_maybe_unsubscribe() in subsys/bluetooth/host/gatt.c before any subscriber callback is invoked, so no subscriber can be handed more than the specified maximum. Remaining tuples of a multiple handle value notification are still delivered and oversized indications are still confirmed.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: 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