CVE Tools

CVE-2026-16515

ICMPv6 error messages sent for multicast-destined packets and non-unique source addresses enable network amplification in Zephyr's IPv6 stack

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 9th percentile. No fix published yet.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

What to do

No fixed build or workaround is published yet. Limit exposure and watch for a patch.

What it is

From the CVE record

net_icmpv6_send_error() in subsys/net/ip/icmpv6.c implemented only one of the three RFC 4443 section 2.4 suppression rules (do not answer an ICMPv6 error with an ICMPv6 error). It did not check whether the triggering packet's source address identifies a single node (rule e.6) or whether the packet was sent to a multicast destination (rule e.3, whose only exceptions are Packet Too Big and Parameter Problem Code 2). Of the five call sites, only the port-unreachable path in subsys/net/ip/connection.c carried an equivalent guard of its own; the extension-header, unknown-next-header and fragmentation paths in subsys/net/ip/ipv6.c and subsys/net/ip/ipv6_fragment.c had none. An unauthenticated attacker with access to the same link can exploit this in two ways. Sending a single IPv6 packet to the link-local all-nodes group ff02::1 carrying an unrecognized next-header value, with the source address spoofed to a chosen victim, causes every Zephyr node on the link to emit an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message to that victim — a reflector with an amplification factor equal to the number of nodes. Alternatively, sending a unicast packet whose source address is a multicast address causes the node to transmit its ICMPv6 error to that multicast address, turning one unicast packet into a link-flooded multicast frame. Packets addressed to ff02::1 are accepted unconditionally by ipv6_input(), and no check rejects a multicast source address, so no special configuration is required. The impact is degraded availability of the shared link and of the reflection victim, together with the ability for the attacker to hide its own address behind the responding nodes. The effect is amplified on constrained mesh links such as 802.15.4/Thread, where link-local multicast is flooded hop by hop. There is no memory-safety consequence: the error packet itself is well formed, it is simply emitted in cases where the protocol forbids it. The fix adds both suppression checks at the single choke point in net_icmpv6_send_error(), before any reply packet is allocated, preserving the RFC-mandated exceptions for NET_ICMPV6_PACKET_TOO_BIG and Parameter Problem Code 2. Note that the IPv4 counterpart net_icmpv4_send_error() in subsys/net/ip/icmpv4.c still checks only for a broadcast destination and retains an equivalent gap for multicast destinations and non-unique sources.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS9th
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.2% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 9th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

4 events over 0 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Publishedweakness classified, record updated, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

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

Scored 4.7 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector AdjacentRequires access to the local network (e.g. same Wi-Fi, Bluetooth)
  • Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
  • Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope ChangedThe exploit can affect other components (e.g. sandbox escape, host compromise from VM)

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality NoneNo confidentiality impact
  • Integrity NoneNo integrity impact
  • Availability LowReduced performance or intermittent disruption of service

Weaknesses

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Zephyr, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store