CVE-2026-19735: Predictable TCP initial sequence numbers when the RFC 6528 secret key generation fails silently in the Zephyr TCP stack
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 19/100)
- 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: 0.16% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. 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 RFC 6528 initial-sequence-number implementation in subsys/net/ip/tcp.c derived every TCP ISN from SHA-256(unique_key || four-tuple) plus a uptime-derived offset, where unique_key is a 128-bit secret filled once by sys_csrand_get(). The return value of that call was discarded and the once guard was latched to true even when the call failed. Because sys_csrand_get() leaves the destination buffer untouched on failure (it deliberately propagates the entropy-driver error rather than filling the buffer), a single failed call left unique_key as its all-zero BSS content for the remainder of the boot, with no retry, no log message and no fallback. A failure of the cryptographic random source is required to reach the weak state — for example -ENODEV/-EIO from the entropy driver in subsys/random/random_entropy_device.c (the in-tree comment notes that the hardware RNG "might still be gathering entropy during early boot situations"), or psa_generate_random() failing in subsys/random/random_psa.c when PSA crypto is not initialised or is backed by a Bluetooth-HCI entropy device that is not yet up. The first TCP connection is what triggers key generation, so a remote peer that reaches a listening port immediately after boot, or that can provoke a reboot, has indirect influence over whether generation coincides with that window. tcp_init_isn() is called for every passive open in tcp_conn_new() and every active open in net_tcp_connect(), so the poisoned key governs all TCP connections for that boot. With an all-zero key the ISN becomes a public function of the connection four-tuple plus a device-wide time offset. An off-path attacker can compute the hash term offline for any four-tuple and recover the shared time offset from a single observed ISN, after which the ISN the device will pick for other four-tuples is predictable. That defeats exactly the protection RFC 6528 provides: blind TCP connection spoofing against peers that trust the source address, and blind data injection into or reset of connections whose four-tuple can be guessed. Devices whose entropy source never errors were never in the weak state. The fix moves key generation into a single guarded helper that latches only on success, logs the error otherwise, and makes tcp_init_isn() fall back to sys_rand32_get() — the behaviour already used when CONFIG_NET_TCP_ISN_RFC6528 is disabled — instead of hashing with a known-constant key.
- Published
- Oct 11, 2026
- Updated
- Nov 4, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 5th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-330
Report tools
Action score
19
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 19 / 40 · 4.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · zephyr
- 4.8
- 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
- 3.7.0 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-2026-19577Oct 11, 2026 · Out-of-bounds read in IPv6 route forwarding when the nexthop neighbor has no link-layer address28Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-19669Oct 11, 2026 · Unbounded variable-length array in fuel gauge syscall verifiers allows kernel stack overflow from user mode31Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-19736Oct 11, 2026 · Out-of-bounds write in the NXP MCUX TRNG entropy driver for non-word-multiple request lengths31Monitor
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+24 d
- TodayNov 5, 2026+25 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.
- CVE-2026-7998112 days apartDNS resolver reuses a single UDP source port for all queries, easing off-path answer spoofing26Monitor
- CVE-2026-8704324 days apartsys_rand_get() silently returns an unwritten buffer when the entropy device is not ready19Monitor
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-330 · Use of Insufficiently Random ValuesCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
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.