CVE 8.8 HIGH

Bluetooth: SMP: derive legacy responder STK authentication from MITM state_CVE-2026-31773

8.8 / 10
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

Bluetooth: SMP: derive legacy responder STK authentication from MITM state

The legacy responder path in smp_random() currently labels the stored
STK as authenticated whenever pending_sec_level is BT_SECURITY_HIGH.
That reflects what the local service requested, not what the pairing
flow actually achieved.

For Just Works/Confirm legacy pairing, SMP_FLAG_MITM_AUTH stays clear
and the resulting STK should remain unauthenticated even if the local
side requested HIGH security. Use the established MITM state when
storing the responder STK so the key metadata matches the pairing result.

This also keeps the legacy path aligned with the Secure Connections code,
which already treats JUST_WORKS/JUST_CFM as unauthenticated.

AI Analysis

A vulnerability in the Linux kernel's Bluetooth implementation could allow an unauthenticated attacker to potentially exploit the pairing process, leading to unauthorized access to sensitive data.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-31773
Source Linux
Published May 1, 2026 at 14:15
Modified May 3, 2026 at 05:45

Affected Product

Vendor Linux
Product Linux
Version fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Affected Versions Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f
Linux Linux 14ec593d6bb050cf40a4ade2f9ac9ca050e0412c
Linux Linux 3.16

AI Assessment

AI Score 8.8 / 10
AI Severity High
Vendor Linux
Product Linux Kernel
Version fff3490f47810e2d34b91fb9e31103e923b11c2f

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.