Skip to content

CVE-2026-10682

Out-of-bounds Write: Is CVE-2026-10682 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
6.6 Medium
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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

The userspace verifier z_vrfy_log_filter_set() for the log_filter_set syscall in subsys/logging/log_mgmt.c performed a signed comparison against the int16_t src_id parameter: src_id < (int16_t)log_src_cnt_get(domain_id). Any negative value for src_id (e.g. -1) trivially satisfied this check and was forwarded into z_impl_log_filter_set, where it propagated to filter_set() and ultimately to get_dynamic_filter(), which uses source_id as an unsigned index into the linker-section array &TYPE_SECTION_START(log_dynamic)[source_id].filters. After implicit conversion through uint32_t, an int16_t -1 becomes 0xFFFFFFFF, indexing log_dynamic far out of bounds and causing the kernel to perform an OOB read and an OOB read-modify-write (LOG_FILTER_SLOT_GET/SET) against memory adjacent to the log_dynamic section. The written value is a constrained 3-bit log level slot within the targeted 32-bit word, but the target address is attacker-chosen (a small negative offset from log_dynamic) and the write occurs in supervisor mode following a syscall from an unprivileged user thread, providing a kernel memory-corruption / privilege-escalation primitive. The defect is reachable on any build with CONFIG_USERSPACE=y and CONFIG_LOG_RUNTIME_FILTERING=y. Present from Zephyr v3.3.0 through v4.4.1. The fix replaces the signed bound check with an unsigned comparison: (uint32_t)src_id < log_src_cnt_get(domain_id), which correctly rejects negative inputs.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10682
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10682/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10682)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10682"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-10682/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-10682"></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.