Memory Buffer Bounds ErrorWeakness · CWE-119

CVE-2026-10165

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-31
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
A vulnerability was identified in Edimax BR-6478AC 1.23. The impacted element is the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup of the component POST Request Handler. Such manipulation of the argument pppUserName leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Stack-based buffer overflow in the formWanTcpipSetup function of Edimax BR-6478AC firmware 1.23 allows remote attackers to overflow a stack buffer via the pppUserName parameter in POST requests to /goform/formWanTcpipSetup, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution.

MitigationSince no vendor patch appears available for this legacy consumer router, immediate mitigation requires network isolation (disable WAN management, restrict access to LAN-only), and the device should be replaced with a currently supported model.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the device model
    Access the router's web administration interface or check the device label/metadata. Look for the model number 'BR-6478AC' in the device info page (commonly at /info.htm or similar) or on the physical device label.
    Affected if The device is not an Edimax BR-6478AC model.
  2. Determine the firmware version
    Log into the router web interface and navigate to the System Status or Firmware Upgrade page to view the current firmware version. Alternatively, check the /info.htm endpoint or the firmware file header if you have local access.
    Affected if The installed firmware version is v1.23 (explicitly listed as affected).
  3. Verify the vulnerable endpoint is accessible
    Send an HTTP POST request to http://<router-ip>/goform/formWanTcpipSetup with any valid POST data (or a test request). A response (even an error) indicates the endpoint exists and is reachable.
    Affected if The endpoint /goform/formWanTcpipSetup responds, meaning the WAN/TCPIP setup form is available.
  4. Confirm remote administration is enabled
    Check the router's 'Remote Management' or 'Administration' settings page. Look for options like 'Enable Remote Management', 'Web Access from WAN', or similar that allow HTTP/HTTPS access from external IP addresses.
    Affected if Remote administration (WAN access) is enabled, allowing unauthenticated or low-privilege attackers to reach the vulnerable form.

You are affected if you have an Edimax BR-6478AC router running firmware v1.23 with the web administration interface accessible from the network (especially WAN), as the pppUserName parameter in POST requests to /goform/formWanTcpipSetup can be exploited.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Since no vendor patch appears available for this legacy consumer router, immediate mitigation requires network isolation (disable WAN management, restrict access to LAN-only), and the device should be replaced with a currently supported model.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10165 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10165 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data