nRF Connect SDK fork of hostap (wpa_supplicant and hostapd) in Zephyr firmware: identifiers and CRA notes

What it is

nRF Connect SDK fork of hostap (wpa_supplicant and hostapd)

• Homepage
• Repository

Notes on this component

`upstream.vendor` is `w1.fi`, the CPE's own upstream vendor, not Nordic Semiconductor: Nordic's SDK vendors a fork of w1.fi's project, and a generated SBOM should name the fork's real upstream as supplier, not the SDK that merely carries it. NCS's own fork of hostap, at `repo-path: sdk-hostap`, `path: modules/lib/hostap`, distinct from Zephyr's own fork (the plain `hostap` row) — both are forks of the same w1.fi project under the same west name, so `rowForProject` tells them apart by repository, not by name. Pinned to a raw commit, not a tag, so only a commit id is available, the same as Zephyr's fork. The upstream flaws are published on the w1.fi security page and filed under w1.fi:wpa_supplicant and w1.fi:hostapd: CVE-2022-23303 and CVE-2022-23304 (cache-access timing side channels in SAE and EAP-pwd recover the password; both before 2.10), CVE-2023-52160 (a PEAP authentication bypass in wpa_supplicant through 2.10 when certificate verification is off) and CVE-2026-58374 (a missing bounds check on a Wi-Fi 7 Multi-Link association request, hostapd 2.11 and earlier, fixed in 2.12). Whether this fork carries any of those fixes was NOT checked for this row: Nordic publishes no advisory feed for sdk-hostap, and a raw commit does not state which upstream revision it merged.

Where it hides in a firmware SBOM

Zephyr lists a west module by its west name, with no PURL or CPE. Vulnerability feeds cannot find it from that listing alone, which is why the SBOM check adds the identifiers below.

The identifiers we assign

PURLpackage URL: a standard way to name a software package

pkg:github/nrfconnect/sdk-hostap@{version}

CPEthe product name vulnerability databases use to say what a flaw affects

cpe:2.3:a:w1.fi:wpa_supplicant:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

{version} is filled in from your build. The version is pinned to the upstream commit your build uses.

The SBOM check adds these identifiers to a component your build listed without them.

Honest gaps

Vendor: w1.fi.

Where this row comes from

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58374
Checked on 10 October 2026.

Known vulnerabilities

Not checked yet

Vulnerability data changes daily. Check the version you ship in the SBOM check.

CRA notes

• List this component in your SBOM. Annex I, Part II (1): Identify and document components and vulnerabilities, including an SBOMKnow what is in your product. Identify and document its components and their vulnerabilities, including by producing a software bill of materials (SBOM) in a common machine-readable format that covers at least the top-level dependencies.
• Ship the version with no known exploitable vulnerabilities at release. Annex I, Part I (2(a)): Made available without known exploitable vulnerabilitiesWhen you place a release on the market, it must not ship with known vulnerabilities that can be exploited in your product. "Exploitable" means an attacker could effectively use it under practical operating conditions (Article 3(41)), not only in theory or in a lab. The Commission's draft guidance (C(2026) 5252, points 231 to 237; a draft, not binding) gives three ways a vulnerability is "known". One: it is listed in a relevant public vulnerability database, such as the European vulnerability database (EUVD) or another prominent one. Two: you learned of it from information that is not public, for example a security researcher's coordinated disclosure or your own testing and analysis; a vulnerability you know about and have not disclosed still counts. Three: it has been publicly and prominently reported in reliable media, whether specialist security publications or general news. A report is not yet proof: it does not by itself mean the vulnerability can be exploited in practice or applies to your product, so investigate promptly and confirm whether it does. A limited time may pass between the first report and that confirmation. If a vulnerability becomes known shortly before release, you decide from your cybersecurity risk assessment whether the release can go out or the vulnerability must be fixed first. Weigh its severity, exploitability and potential impact, and the risks to the product once in use; you may also weigh the risks of delaying the release, for example because it fixes other exploitable vulnerabilities. After release, the Part II vulnerability handling requirements still apply. Check your components against vulnerability databases before each release, and fix or justify what you find.

Source: Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (Cyber Resilience Act), legal state 2026.10.13-1.

Related Zephyr components

No related components yet.

Guides that mention nRF Connect SDK fork of hostap (wpa_supplicant and hostapd)

• The CRA for Zephyr developers: what the law asks, what west spdx gives you, and what is left

Next step

Declarable prepares documentation for you to review. It is not legal advice and not certification. You sign your own declaration of conformity.