CVE-2026-102720

A DHCP server, or anyone on the LAN who answers a DISCOVER first, can make the client read about a

kilobyte past the end of the received message.

The option walk keeps a pointer and an offset in step, and the only bound check uses the offset:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

/* addons/dhcp/nxd_dhcp_client.c:7538, 7572 */



while (i < length - 1)



{

    ...
    size = *(++data);      /* data moves 1: type -> length byte */
    data += size + 1;      /* data moves size + 1 more          */
    i += size + 1;         /* i moves only size + 1             */


}

A TLV option occupies size + 2 bytes. data is advanced by size + 2 in total, i by size + 1, so

the offset falls one byte behind the real read position for every option the walk skips. After

enough skipped options the check i < length - 1 still holds while data is already past the end

of the message, and the subsequent read of the type and length bytes comes from whatever follows.

A single OFFER carrying a long run of skippable options is enough:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14

ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow



READ of size 1 at 0x61b000000794 thread T5

    #0 _nx_dhcp_search_buffer     addons/dhcp/nxd_dhcp_client.c:7541
    #1 _nx_dhcp_get_option_value  addons/dhcp/nxd_dhcp_client.c:7082


0x61b000000794 is located 164 bytes to the right of 1648-byte region

A well formed OFFER through the same path is handled normally, the client records the offer and

moves to REQUESTING, so the difference is the option layout rather than the harness.

The read runs in the DHCP client thread while the client is still unconfigured, so it happens on

every boot in reach of a hostile DHCP responder. The values read are used to configure the

interface, which is how the disclosed bytes become observable.

Advance i by size + 2, or derive the bound from data rather than keeping a second counter.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/netxduo/security/advisories/GHSA-8hj5-p46x-5h28