Skip to content

CVE-2026-10674

Is CVE-2026-10674 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
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-617
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.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

The NXP LPUART serial driver (drivers/serial/uart_mcux_lpuart.c), when CONFIG_UART_USE_RUNTIME_CONFIGURE is enabled, called LPUART_Deinit() at the start of mcux_lpuart_configure(), which disables the LPUART peripheral clocks. The requested configuration is validated only afterwards (in mcux_lpuart_configure_basic), and unsupported parity/data-bit/stop-bit/flow-control values return -ENOTSUP before the clock is re-enabled. As a result, a uart_configure() request with an unsupported configuration left the LPUART in a clock-disabled state; any subsequent access to LPUART registers (poll_out/poll_in, interrupt handling, or a later reconfigure) faults on the gated peripheral and escalates to a hard fault, crashing the system. uart_configure() is a Zephyr syscall whose verifier (z_vrfy_uart_configure) only checks that cfg is readable user memory and forwards the caller-supplied configuration unchanged, so an unprivileged userspace thread with access to an LPUART device can deterministically trigger the fault, a persistent system-wide denial of service. Introduced in v2.5.0 and present in all subsequent releases until this fix, which removes the LPUART_Deinit() call and instead only disables the transmitter/receiver, leaving the clock running.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10674
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10674/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10674)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10674"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10674/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10674"></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

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

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.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-617.