FKIE_CVE-2026-43062
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-05-05 16:16 - Updated: 2026-05-08 13:16
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: L2CAP: Fix type confusion in l2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp()
l2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp() casts the incoming data to struct
l2cap_ecred_conn_rsp (the ECRED *connection* response, 8 bytes with
result at offset 6) instead of struct l2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp (2 bytes
with result at offset 0).
This causes two problems:
- The sizeof(*rsp) length check requires 8 bytes instead of the
correct 2, so valid L2CAP_ECRED_RECONF_RSP packets are rejected
with -EPROTO.
- rsp->result reads from offset 6 instead of offset 0, returning
wrong data when the packet is large enough to pass the check.
Fix by using the correct type. Also pass the already byte-swapped
result variable to BT_DBG instead of the raw __le16 field.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nBluetooth: L2CAP: Fix type confusion in l2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp()\n\nl2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp() casts the incoming data to struct\nl2cap_ecred_conn_rsp (the ECRED *connection* response, 8 bytes with\nresult at offset 6) instead of struct l2cap_ecred_reconf_rsp (2 bytes\nwith result at offset 0).\n\nThis causes two problems:\n\n - The sizeof(*rsp) length check requires 8 bytes instead of the\n correct 2, so valid L2CAP_ECRED_RECONF_RSP packets are rejected\n with -EPROTO.\n\n - rsp-\u003eresult reads from offset 6 instead of offset 0, returning\n wrong data when the packet is large enough to pass the check.\n\nFix by using the correct type. Also pass the already byte-swapped\nresult variable to BT_DBG instead of the raw __le16 field."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-43062",
"lastModified": "2026-05-08T13:16:37.303",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 7.1,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 4.2,
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2026-05-05T16:16:15.340",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/111f74547eee8cfedfb854284e80f35c8a491186"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/15145675690cab2de1056e7ed68e59cbd0452529"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/21d3ba696918d6373233aac0b9d51fcabdedddc0"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3b94e62caa1dc1198d0d55d97bd710da1dee15d7"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5a1ea296f8589ce8f1e3141b2b123b34ad010e19"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d90150c72d2e6a8a3079e88755dafcfbe91c746d"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dd3b221e21079ade8263fbb7176f3d55ad75d3b6"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f110b8f58b254bf997cec1bd60701b7798e9bb82"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…