CVE-2026-19571
The ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend (subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/backends/ec_host_cmd_backend_shi_ite.c) copied the 8-byte host-command request header from the SPI Rx FIFO directly into the shared receive buffer data->in_msg and only afterwards checked the protocol version and the derived packet length. The interrupt handler also accepted a chip-select assertion and an Rx-valid-length (RVLI) interrupt in any driver state other than SHI_STATE_DISABLED, so a new header could be parsed while the host-command thread was still processing the previous request out of the very same buffer.
The host processor is the SPI controller and drives both chip select and the clock.
Read full descriptionShow less
After sending a well-formed request it can immediately de-assert chip select — which returns the driver to the ready state and re-enables the FIFO — and start a second transaction carrying a header with data_len = 0xFFFF. Those eight bytes are written into in_msg before the oversized length is rejected, so they land in a buffer whose contents verify_rx() in subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/ec_host_cmd_handler.c has already validated. If this lands in the window before the host-command thread executes args.input_buf_size = rx_header->data_len, the framework hands the registered command handler a 65535-byte input length over a 256-byte buffer.
The result is an out-of-bounds read of up to roughly 64 KiB beyond the request buffer: command handlers that copy or echo input_buf_size bytes disclose adjacent embedded-controller memory back to the host or overflow the response buffer, and a read past the end of SRAM faults the controller. The same race also allows cmd_id and cmd_ver to be swapped after checksum verification and after handler lookup. Exploitation requires the ability to drive the inter-processor SHI bus (a compromised host OS or physical access to the SPI lines) and winning a timing race, which the SPI controller can retry indefinitely.
The fix parses the header into a local struct ec_host_cmd_request_header and copies it into in_msg only after the length has been bounded by sizeof(data->in_msg), and ignores chip-select and RVLI interrupts outside SHI_STATE_READY_TO_RECV/SHI_STATE_RECEIVING. A residual, bounded race remains: an end-of-transaction interrupt still resets the state to ready while the host-command thread owns the buffer, so a valid second request can still overwrite the in-flight request's contents, unlike the NPCX backend which parks in SHI_STATE_CNL_RESP_NOT_RDY while the buffer is in use.
CVSS
- Version: 3.1
- Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
- Base score: 6.7
Exploitation probability (EPSS)
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.09%
- Percentile among all scored CVEs: 0
- Score date: 10/14/2026
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST) estimates how likely a vulnerability is to be exploited in the wild within 30 days. It complements CVSS (impact) and CISA KEV (confirmed exploitation).
🎯 ATT&CK techniques
How this vulnerability is exploited and what the attacker gains, in MITRE ATT&CK terms.
- Exploitation
T1068Exploitation for Privilege Escalationprivilege escalation85 % - Primary impact
T1005Data from Local Systemcollection80 %
Vulnerabilidad de race condition en manejador SPI del EC que permite lectura OOB de 64 KiB (T1005) y sobrescritura de buffer con privilegios elevados tras eludir verificación (T1068). Requiere acceso local al bus SHI o SO comprometido (AV:L, no requiere UI).
Inferred by our analysis agent from the official description, CVSS vector and CWE, and checked by a supervisor. May contain errors.
🛡️ ATT&CK mitigations that cover these techniques
Affected technologies (1)
⚠ AI-inferred from the description — NVD hasn't analyzed this CVE yet, these aren't verified CPEs.
CWEs
- CWE-362
References
Raw JSON (NVD)
Show
{
"id": "CVE-2026-19571",
"cveTags": [],
"metrics": {
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-19571",
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"version": "2.0.3",
"timestamp": "2026-10-09T17:57:11.124067Z"
}
}
],
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"type": "Secondary",
"source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
"cvssData": {
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"version": "3.1",
"baseScore": 6.7,
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH"
},
"impactScore": 5.2,
"exploitabilityScore": 1.4
}
]
},
"affected": [
{
"source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
"affectedData": [
{
"vendor": "zephyrproject",
"product": "zephyr",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.3.0",
"lessThan": "4.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
],
"packageName": "zephyr",
"programFiles": [
"subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/backends/ec_host_cmd_backend_shi_ite.c"
],
"collectionURL": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "shi_ite_cs_callback"
},
{
"name": "shi_ite_int_handler"
},
{
"name": "shi_ite_parse_header"
}
]
}
]
}
],
"published": "2026-10-09T08:16:54.817",
"references": [
{
"url": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/0636e65c825e810ad97f154606365870152d402f",
"source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org"
},
{
"url": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-4x98-6536-cwjv",
"source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org"
}
],
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
"weaknesses": [
{
"type": "Secondary",
"source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-362"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The ITE IT8xxx2 SHI host-command backend (subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/backends/ec_host_cmd_backend_shi_ite.c) copied the 8-byte host-command request header from the SPI Rx FIFO directly into the shared receive buffer data->in_msg and only afterwards checked the protocol version and the derived packet length. The interrupt handler also accepted a chip-select assertion and an Rx-valid-length (RVLI) interrupt in any driver state other than SHI_STATE_DISABLED, so a new header could be parsed while the host-command thread was still processing the previous request out of the very same buffer.\n\nThe host processor is the SPI controller and drives both chip select and the clock. After sending a well-formed request it can immediately de-assert chip select — which returns the driver to the ready state and re-enables the FIFO — and start a second transaction carrying a header with data_len = 0xFFFF. Those eight bytes are written into in_msg before the oversized length is rejected, so they land in a buffer whose contents verify_rx() in subsys/mgmt/ec_host_cmd/ec_host_cmd_handler.c has already validated. If this lands in the window before the host-command thread executes args.input_buf_size = rx_header->data_len, the framework hands the registered command handler a 65535-byte input length over a 256-byte buffer.\n\nThe result is an out-of-bounds read of up to roughly 64 KiB beyond the request buffer: command handlers that copy or echo input_buf_size bytes disclose adjacent embedded-controller memory back to the host or overflow the response buffer, and a read past the end of SRAM faults the controller. The same race also allows cmd_id and cmd_ver to be swapped after checksum verification and after handler lookup. Exploitation requires the ability to drive the inter-processor SHI bus (a compromised host OS or physical access to the SPI lines) and winning a timing race, which the SPI controller can retry indefinitely.\n\nThe fix parses the header into a local struct ec_host_cmd_request_header and copies it into in_msg only after the length has been bounded by sizeof(data->in_msg), and ignores chip-select and RVLI interrupts outside SHI_STATE_READY_TO_RECV/SHI_STATE_RECEIVING. A residual, bounded race remains: an end-of-transaction interrupt still resets the state to ready while the host-command thread owns the buffer, so a valid second request can still overwrite the in-flight request's contents, unlike the NPCX backend which parks in SHI_STATE_CNL_RESP_NOT_RDY while the buffer is in use."
}
],
"lastModified": "2026-10-09T18:17:08.020",
"sourceIdentifier": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org"
}