Memory leak in the Mbed TLS crypto shim on failed cipher/AEAD operations leads to remotely triggered crypto denial of service

MonitorNot in CISA KEVCVE-2026-87044CWE-401

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet.

Edge rules

0/9

Our test

No exploit yet

CVSS

6.5

EPSS

—

Posts, 14d

Published

2026-11-04

What it is

The Mbed TLS crypto shim driver in drivers/crypto/crypto_mbedtls_shim.c drives PSA multipart cipher and AEAD operations. In mbedtls_cbc() and mbedtls_aead(), every error path after a successful psa_cipher_encrypt_setup() / psa_aead_decrypt_setup() returned directly without calling psa_cipher_abort() / psa_aead_abort(). Because the abort is the only thing that reaches mbedtls_cipher_free(), each failed operation permanently leaked the heap-allocated mbedtls_aes_context (roughly 288 bytes) that setup had allocated from Mbed TLS's fixed static heap (_mbedtls_heap[CONFIG_MBEDTLS_HEAP_SIZE], default 512 bytes). With CONFIG_PSA_CRYPTO_PROVIDER_TFM the leaked object is instead a finite secure-partition multipart-operation slot. The failure is chosen by an unauthenticated attacker. With CONFIG_NET_L2_IEEE802154_SECURITY backed by this driver, ieee802154_decrypt_auth() in subsys/net/l2/ieee802154/ieee802154_security.c invokes cipher_ccm_op() on every received secured frame, with no authentication ahead of the MIC check. A device in radio range can transmit a stream of syntactically valid 802.15.4 frames carrying a bogus MIC; each one makes psa_aead_verify() fail and leaks a block. The CBC path is reachable the same way through the OSDP secure channel, where CONFIG_OSDP_SC_ENABLED selects this shim and osdp_encrypt() / osdp_decrypt() leave out_buf_max unset, so every operation fails inside psa_cipher_update(). Exhausting the Mbed TLS heap — which the default configuration reaches after a couple of failed operations, and any realistic configuration reaches in well under a second of frames — makes all subsequent mbedtls_calloc() calls fail. Every later cryptographic operation in the image then fails permanently, including link-layer security and any TLS/DTLS sharing the same heap, until the device is rebooted. There is no memory corruption or information disclosure: frames with an invalid MIC are still rejected, so the impact is limited to availability. The fix routes all post-setup failures in mbedtls_cbc() and mbedtls_aead() through a common error: label that calls the matching PSA abort before returning. Setup failures need no change, since the PSA core aborts the operation itself when setup fails.

Read the full descriptionShow less

From the CVE record · CVE-2026-87044 ↗

MonitorLast checked 2026-11-04

The risk

No edge WAF vendor names it in a changelog, so default managed rules may or may not catch it. Exploitation in the wild is not established by CISA KEV.

Who is affected

Teams running zephyrproject zephyr (4.4.0 to before 4.5.0).

Next steps

Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions. Fix commit ↗
Do not rely on WAF defaults: no edge vendor names this CVE. Restrict access to the vulnerable component or add a custom rule until it is patched. Edge coverage
Check which WAF sits in front of your site and whether it covers this CVE. Check your domain

Edge coverage

Claimed by vendors

CloudflareNo public claimNot named AWSNo public claimNot named Microsoft AzureNo public claimNot named Google CloudNo public claimNot named FastlyNo public claimNot named VercelNo public claimNot named F5No public claimNot named AkamaiNo public sourceNo public changelog OWASP CRSNo public claimNot named

Attack traffic on Cloudflare

Cloudflare Radar

Rules for named CVEs5.6% of mitigated layer 7 attacks, 7 days

Radar groups Cloudflare's WAF managed rules by category; it does not publish counts per CVE. These shares show how much attack traffic targets this kind of flaw across Cloudflare's network (28-day trend). They are not compromised systems, and seeing few attempts on Cloudflare does not prove an absence elsewhere. Radar data as of 2026-11-04. Radar ↗

Check your exposure with an agent

Read-only

Copy this into an agent with access to your infrastructure. It asks for an evidence-based, read-only assessment: affected systems, exposure, compensating controls and what is still unknown. It does not scan or change anything by itself.

Prompt12 lines

Assess whether the infrastructure available to you is affected by CVE-2026-87044 (Memory leak in the Mbed TLS crypto shim on failed cipher/AEAD operations leads to remotely triggered crypto denial of service). Perform a read-only assessment within your authorized access. Do not send exploit traffic, scan third-party systems, change configuration or restart services.

1. Verify the CVE record at https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-87044 and the vendor advisories (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/8e7e9e9bf9f0b1a7acd12ef3d6d38473b1ce6d43). Establish affected and fixed versions, including vendor backports. The record lists: zephyrproject zephyr: affected 4.4.0 to before 4.5.0. Cite sources and retrieval dates; flag anything you cannot verify.
2. Inventory deployments of zephyrproject zephyr: asset, environment, owner where known, installed version or build, and how you confirmed it (package metadata, a version endpoint, image tags). An image tag alone does not prove the running version.
3. Identify which deployments are reachable from the internet or untrusted networks, and through which paths (direct origin, load balancer, CDN or WAF).
4. Assess compensating controls separately from patch status. Current edge WAF coverage for this CVE: no edge WAF vendor names it. Live data: https://cve.vigilbase.com/api/v1/cves/CVE-2026-87044. Check whether the rule is enabled and in block mode on each path, and whether any path bypasses the WAF. A WAF rule is not a patch.
5. Check logs on exposed instances for requests matching the public exploit, if your access allows.

Return a short summary and a table: asset | version/build | assessment (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | exposure | compensating control | evidence | next action. List what you could not assess and the access needed to resolve it. Do not infer absence of compromise from patch status or a lack of alerts.

Remediation guidance: Apply the vendor's fix; the advisory lists the affected and fixed versions. Do not rely on WAF defaults: no edge vendor names this CVE. Restrict access to the vulnerable component or add a custom rule until it is patched.
More: https://cve.vigilbase.com/cve/CVE-2026-87044

Sources

Cited

CVE record

CVSS 3.1 6.5 (medium). Weakness: CWE-401.

CVE-2026-87044 ↗NVD ↗

Vendor advisory

Fixes and mitigations the CVE record links to. Check affected builds against the vendor, including backports.

Fix commit ↗

Exploit evidence

No public exploit code found in Exploit-DB, Metasploit, nuclei-templates or GitHub. That does not mean none exists.

CISA KEV

Not in the KEV catalog (catalog 2026.11.03, checked 2026-11-04). Absence from KEV is not evidence that it cannot be exploited.

CISA KEV catalog ↗

WAF vendor statements

No edge vendor changelog names it.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page

Ask about CVE-2026-87044: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1

6.5Medium

Medium · 6.5 / 10

Exploitable from an adjacent network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of availability.

Same network onlyNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact

How the score is built8 metrics

Attack vectorAn attacker must be on the same local network, Wi-Fi or VPN segment.
Adjacent network
Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Low
Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
None
User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
None
ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
Unchanged
Confidentiality impactNo data is exposed.
None
Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.
None
Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
High

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

Public exploits

None found

0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

2026-11-04
CVE published
CVE List
2026-11-04
First social mention we saw

Vendor statements

Quoted

CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The feed holds only the latest 25 changes, so history builds up from the day we started reading it.

VercelVercel WAF (platform rules)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Vercel posts about the vulnerabilities it ships platform-wide rules for, on by default for every project, with no rule ids. When a post limits its claim to some advisories, we count only the ones it names. Projects not on Vercel get nothing from these rules.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.