EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
The HTTP/2 server in subsys/net/lib/http/http_server_http2.c clears the connection's stream binding at the start of every frame. handle_http_frame_header() executed client->current_stream = NULL unconditionally, but a CONTINUATION frame does not open a new stream and enter_http_frame_continuation_state() never re-bound one, so the rest of the header block was processed with client->current_stream unset. Two paths then write through the NULL pointer. A request for an unregistered resource, or a method the matched resource does not support, is answered by send_http2_404() or send_http2_405(), and both call send_headers_frame(), which unconditionally sets client->current_stream->headers_sent = true. A POST, PUT or PATCH to a registered dynamic resource reaches handle_http2_dynamic_resource(), which unlike its siblings (handle_http2_static_resource(), dynamic_get_del_opts_req_v2(), dynamic_post_put_req_v2()) had no client->current_stream == NULL guard, and stores through the pointer with client->current_stream->current_detail = dynamic_detail.
Any peer that can reach the server can trigger this without authentication or prior state. A single stray CONTINUATION frame with END_HEADERS set, sent right after the client preface and requesting any unregistered path, is enough, because nothing rejected a CONTINUATION that no HEADERS frame had opened. A legitimate split header block (a HEADERS frame with END_HEADERS clear whose payload ends on a header-field boundary, then a CONTINUATION with END_HEADERS set) reaches the same state. The in-tree test test_http2_post_headers_with_continuation() did not catch this because it splits the header block mid field, which takes the handle_incomplete_http_header() shortcut that keeps the stream bound.
The result is a write to a fixed low address (a small offset into struct http2_stream_ctx), which faults on mainstream targets (flash/vector-table region on Cortex-M, or a trap under MPU/MMU null-pointer detection), and the default fatal-error handler halts the system. Impact is an unauthenticated, remotely triggerable denial of service against any device running the HTTP/2 server: the 404 path needs no particular resource to be registered, and HTTP/2 is built into CONFIG_HTTP_SERVER with cleartext h2c accepted, so TLS does not prevent it. Neither the target address nor the written value is attacker-controlled, so there is no confidentiality or integrity impact. Applications built without CONFIG_HTTP_SERVER are not affected.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-09). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it