CVE-2026-19574: ARM64 MMU can assign an in-use ASID to a new memory domain, breaking user-mode memory isolation
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 28/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.09% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- Fixed version: zephyrproject zephyr 4.3.2, 4.5.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to zephyrproject zephyr 4.3.2, 4.5.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
The ARM64 MMU back-end allocated address space identifiers (ASIDs) for memory domains with a bare round-robin counter in arch_mem_domain_init() (arch/arm64/core/mmu.c). VM_ASID_BITS is 8, so only 255 ASIDs exist; once the counter wrapped, arch_mem_domain_init() could hand an ASID to a new domain while a still-live domain held the same one. Domain-private mappings are installed non-global (MT_NG), so the ASID is the only tag separating one domain's cached translations from another's in the TLB. The context-switch path in z_arm64_swap_ptables() only flushes the TLB when the outgoing and incoming domains carry the same ASID, which does not cover a duplicate reached through a third domain: for domains A and C sharing an ASID and an unrelated domain B, the schedule A -> B -> C never takes the flush branch, so the ASID-tagged entries A populated remain resident while C runs. Under SMP two live domains sharing an ASID can additionally be resident on two CPUs at once, which the architecture does not allow for distinct translation-table sets. Triggering the wrap requires a CONFIG_USERSPACE application on ARM64 that creates more than 255 memory domains over its lifetime; k_mem_domain_init() and k_mem_domain_deinit() are supervisor-only APIs and are not exposed as syscalls, so an unprivileged thread cannot drive the counter directly. Once two live domains alias, however, a user-mode thread in one domain can read and write memory belonging to the other domain's partitions and thread stacks with that domain's permissions, defeating the memory-domain isolation boundary. The fix scans the live domain_list before assigning an ASID, advances the round-robin counter past ASIDs already in use, and returns -ENOMEM when all are taken, so domain creation fails closed instead of silently aliasing.
- Published
- Oct 9, 2026
- Updated
- Nov 4, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.0% · 0th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-284
Report tools
Action score
28
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 28 / 40 · 7.0 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.0%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · zephyr
- 7.0
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (zephyr). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
zephyrproject zephyr
- 3.3.0 and later · before 4.3.2affected · semver
- 4.4.0 and later · before 4.5.0affected · semver
Same product
zephyrproject: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2023-4260Potential off-by-one buffer overflow vulnerability in the Zephyr FS subsystem40Plan
- CVE-2021-3625Buffer overflow in Zephyr USB DFU DNLOAD40Plan
- CVE-2020-10071Insufficient publish message length validation in MQTT40Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-19570Oct 9, 2026 · Out-of-bounds write in LE Audio Broadcast Sink when copying BASE subgroup metadata into the BASS receive state35Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-19571Oct 9, 2026 · Race condition in ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend lets a second SPI request write an unvalidated length into the in-flight request buffer26Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-19575Oct 9, 2026 · Type confusion in the device_deinit system call allows user-mode threads to execute arbitrary kernel code31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| zephyrproject zephyr | 4.3.2 | Vendor (CNA) |
| zephyrproject zephyr | 4.5.0 | Vendor (CNA) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- Published
- Fix recorded+26 d
- TodayNov 6, 2026+28 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-284 · Improper Access ControlCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Embedding Scripts within ScriptsCAPEC-19likelihood: High · High
- Malicious Logic InsertionCAPEC-441likelihood: Medium · High
- Modification of Windows Service ConfigurationCAPEC-478likelihood: Low · High
- Malicious Root CertificateCAPEC-479likelihood: Low · Low
- Intent SpoofCAPEC-502
- WebView ExposureCAPEC-503
- Data Injected During ConfigurationCAPEC-536likelihood: Low · High
- Incomplete Data Deletion in a Multi-Tenant EnvironmentCAPEC-546likelihood: Low · Medium
ATT&CK techniques
- RootkitT1014
- Obfuscated Files or Information: Embedded PayloadsT1027.009
- Boot or Logon Initialization ScriptsT1037
- Taint shared contentT1080
- Server Software Component: Terminal Services DLLT1505.005
- Pre-OS Boot:BootkitT1542.003
- Create or Modify System ProcessT1543
- Create or Modify System Process: Launch AgentT1543.001
- Create or Modify System Process:Windows ServiceT1543.003
- Create or Modify System Process: Launch DaemonT1543.004
- Event Triggered Execution:Change Default File AssociationT1546.001
- Event Triggered Execution:.bash_profile and .bashrcT1546.004
- Event Triggered Execution: Accessibility FeaturesT1546.008
- Event Triggered Execution: Installer PackagesT1546.016
- Boot or Logon Autostart ExecutionT1547
- Boot or Logon Autostart Execution:Kernel Modules and ExtensionsT1547.006
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
- SSVC exploitation— → none
- Exploit maturity— → none
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.