Zephyr Project up to 4.4.2 Goodix GT9xx Input Driver input_gt911.c gt911_process stack-based overflow

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability categorized as very critical has been discovered in Zephyr Project Zephyr up to 4.4.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function gt911_process of the file drivers/input/input_gt911.c of the component Goodix GT9xx Input Driver. Executing a manipulation can lead to stack-based overflow. This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2026-19576. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. There is not any exploit available.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability classified as very critical was found in Zephyr Project Zephyr up to 4.4.2. This vulnerability affects the function gt911_process of the file drivers/input/input_gt911.c of the component Goodix GT9xx Input Driver. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a stack-based overflow vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-121. A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function). As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. CVE summarizes:

The Goodix GT9xx input driver in drivers/input/input_gt911.c reads the touch point count from the controller's status register and masks it with GT911_TOUCH_POINTS_MSK (0x0F), yielding a value of 0..15. In gt911_process() that value is used directly as the loop bound for filling point_reg[], a stack array sized to CONFIG_INPUT_GT911_MAX_TOUCH_POINTS, whose Kconfig range is 1..5 with a default of 1. No other check constrains the count; the driver relied only on a comment asserting that the controller had been programmed at init to report no more points than configured. Each loop iteration issues an I2C read of eight bytes straight into point_reg[i], so a controller that reports more points than the array holds causes up to 112 bytes of peer-supplied data to be written past the end of the array, over the stack frame of gt911_process() in the system workqueue thread. Two further loops then read out of bounds from the same array. Triggering it requires control of, or the ability to substitute, the I2C touch controller — plausible on the many supported boards where the GT9xx panel is a pluggable display module or shield rather than an on-PCB part; a spoofed device need only answer the init probes with a supported product ID and a checksum-valid config blob. The same overflow can also occur non-adversarially, with a GT9271-class panel that ignores the driver's touch-count programming and reports up to ten points, or with bus corruption of the single status byte. The impact is an out-of-bounds stack write with fully attacker-chosen content executing at kernel privilege, i.e. potential control-flow hijack on the host MCU, in addition to out-of-bounds reads and crashes. The attack vector is physical/local hardware access only; there is no network, USB, or syscall path to the defect. The fix clamps the reported count with min() against CONFIG_INPUT_GT911_MAX_TOUCH_POINTS before any array indexing.

The advisory is available at github.com. This vulnerability was named CVE-2026-19576 since 08/11/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. Local access is required to approach this attack. Technical details are known, but there is no available exploit. The structure of the vulnerability defines a possible price range of USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 10/11/2026).

There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.

If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.

Productinfo

Type

• Project Management Software

Vendor

• Zephyr Project

Name

• Zephyr

Version

• 4.4.0
• 4.4.1
• 4.4.2

CPE 2.3info

• 🔒
• 🔒
• 🔒

CPE 2.2info

• 🔒
• 🔒
• 🔒

CVSSv4info

CVSSv3info

CVSSv2info

Exploitinginfo

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Countermeasuresinfo

Timelineinfo

Sourcesinfo

Entryinfo

If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.

Discussion