Skip to content

CVE-2026-10665

Out-of-bounds Write: Is CVE-2026-10665 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.4 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
n/a
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

In Zephyr's WireGuard subsystem (subsys/net/lib/wireguard), wg_process_data_message() in wg_crypto.c linearizes an inbound transport-data payload into a fixed pool buffer of CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN bytes before decryption. The call net_buf_linearize(buf->data, data_len, pkt->buffer, ..., data_len) passed the attacker-derived data_len as both the destination capacity and the copy length, defeating the function's internal len = min(len, dst_len) bound. data_len is derived from the received UDP datagram length and is only lower-bounded by wg_ctrl_recv() (no upper bound). When data_len exceeds CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN — e.g. when the buffer length is lowered below the link MTU, on links with MTU above the buffer size, or via reassembled IPv4/IPv6 fragments that exceed it — the underlying memcpy writes past the end of the pool buffer, an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787). The overflow occurs before the Poly1305 authentication check, so it requires only a valid receiver session index rather than a valid authenticator, and is reachable by a malicious or compromised peer (or an on-path attacker driving an established session) over the network, yielding remote memory corruption and at minimum a reliable denial of service. The defect was present in the WireGuard implementation shipped in Zephyr 4.4.0. The fix adds an explicit data_len > CONFIG_WIREGUARD_BUF_LEN rejection and corrects the linearize call to pass net_buf_max_len(buf) as the destination capacity.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10665
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10665/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10665)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10665"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10665/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10665"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write.