CVE-2026-12363

mediumpriority · track · 0EPSS 0.002 · 16 %ileEU
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.24% (16th) EPSS
CVSS 4.2 · medium
Is it mine?
1 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
2 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

The LoRaWAN Fragmented Data Block Transport service (subsys/lorawan/services/frag_transport.c) does not validate the fragment counter in a received DATA_FRAGMENT command before forwarding it to the configured decoder. In frag_transport_package_callback() the value frag_counter = hdr->frag_index_n & 0x3FFF is taken directly from the downlink payload and passed to the decoder, which derives an array index and flash offset as frag_counter - 1. DataFragment fragments are 1-indexed, so a frag_counter of 0 underflows that arithmetic. With the default Semtech/LoRaMAC-node decoder, this reaches FragDecoder.FragNbMissingIndex[fragCounter - 1] = 0; in FragDecoderProcess(), where fragCounter - 1 evaluates to -1 and writes a uint16_t zero out of bounds, just before the array and into the adjacent MatrixM2B recovery-matrix state of the static decoder object (CWE-787). A companion write derives a wild flash offset, but that path is rejected by the flash_area_write() bounds check. The in-tree low-memory decoder (frag_dec()) is not corrupted: its out-of-range bit-array and flash accesses are caught by sys_bitarray_ and flash_area_ bounds checks. The handler is the registered downlink callback for the fragmentation transport port, reachable whenever an active fragmentation session exists, so the triggering byte is attacker-influenceable LoRaWAN/FUOTA network input. Triggering it requires authenticated downlinks (LoRaWAN MAC session keys or a malicious/compromised network or FUOTA server) and an active fragmentation session. The impact is contained: corruption of decoder state and denial of the firmware-update (FUOTA) session rather than controllable memory corruption or code execution. The fix adds a transport-layer check that rejects frag_counter == 0, closing the defect for both decoder backends.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

4.2
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · low–medium · 3.9–4.2

v3.14.2mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Lsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.14.2mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Lsecondary · vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.orgexploitability 1.6 · impact 2.5
v3.13.9lowCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Trackcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (1)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

also known as (2)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

06

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-08-14modified 2026-08-26
07

references (6)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan