CVE-2026-2411: Bluetooth GATT notify/indicate enforces the wrong attribute's permissions, bypassing encryption/authentication requirements on characteristic values
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 26/100)
- 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: 0.18% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: zephyrproject zephyr 4.3.1, 4.4.2.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to zephyrproject zephyr 4.3.1, 4.4.2 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
Zephyr's Bluetooth host declares a GATT characteristic as two consecutive attributes: a Characteristic Declaration whose permission is hard-coded to BT_GATT_PERM_READ, and a Characteristic Value attribute that carries the application-specified security permissions (e.g. BT_GATT_PERM_READ_ENCRYPT / READ_AUTHEN / READ_LESC). The public notify and indicate APIs explicitly accept either attribute, and passing the declaration is the documented, common idiom. Before sending each notification or indication, the host re-checks link security with bt_gatt_check_perm() against params->attr in gatt_notify(), gatt_indicate(), and gatt_notify_multiple_verify_params() (subsys/bluetooth/host/gatt.c). When the application passed the Characteristic Declaration attribute, the host correctly redirected the value handle but left params->attr pointing at the declaration, so the security check evaluated the declaration's permissions (no security required) instead of the value's. As a result the encryption/authentication/LESC requirement configured on the characteristic value was skipped. The Notify-Multiple path additionally used a mask that omitted the LE Secure Connections requirement. A remote peer triggers the disclosure by connecting (optionally without pairing or encryption) and writing the Client Characteristic Configuration descriptor to enable notifications or indications, causing the server to emit the protected value over a link that has not reached the required security level. The impact is information disclosure / access-control bypass for characteristic values the application intended to expose only over a secured link; exposure depends on the application declaring encrypt/authen-required notify/indicate characteristics and on the CCC being writable at a lower security tier. There is no memory-safety or availability impact. The fix adds bt_gatt_attr_resolve_value(), which maps a declaration attribute to the following value attribute before the permission check, and switches the Notify-Multiple path to the full BT_GATT_PERM_READ_ENCRYPT_MASK so the LESC requirement is also enforced.
- Published
- Aug 1, 2026
- Updated
- Oct 23, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.1% · 7th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-863
Report tools
Action score
26
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 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
- 6.5
- 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.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| zephyrproject | zephyr | cpe:2.3:o:zephyrproject:zephyr |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- zephyrproject zephyr2.6.0 and later · before 4.5.0
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
- 2.6.0 and later · before 4.3.1affected · semver
- 4.4.0 and later · before 4.4.2affected · 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-2026-10686Jul 31, 2026 · Missing hop-limit decrement on IPv6 forwarding path allows unbounded packet looping (DoS) in Zephyr routers30Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-10773Aug 1, 2026 · Out-of-bounds read in DHCPv4 client message-type name lookup (net_dhcpv4_msg_type_name)21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-10774Aug 2, 2026 · PSA key-slot leak in Bluetooth Mesh subnet deletion leading to resource-exhaustion DoS26Monitor
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 | 4.3.1 | Vendor (CNA) |
| zephyrproject zephyr | 4.4.2 | 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.
No dated events beyond publication.
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 on the same network segment can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-863 · Incorrect AuthorizationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.